Hathaway on the solar conveyor belt and deep solar minimum

From NASA News: Solar ‘Current of Fire’ Speeds Up

What in the world is the sun up to now?

In today’s issue of Science, NASA solar physicist David Hathaway reports that the top of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years.

“I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we’ve been experiencing,” says Hathaway. “The high speed of the conveyor belt challenges existing models of the solar cycle and it has forced us back to the drawing board for new ideas.”

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to complete one circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle.

Above: An artist’s concept of the sun’s Great Conveyor Belt. [larger image]

Hathaway has been monitoring the conveyor belt using data from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). The top of the belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up knots of solar magnetism and carrying them toward the poles. SOHO is able to track those knots—Hathaway calls them “magnetic elements”–and thus reveal the speed of the underlying flow.

“It’s a little like measuring the speed of a river on Earth by clocking the leaves and twigs floating downstream,” Hathaway explains.SOHO’s dataset extends all the way back to 1996 and spans a complete solar cycle. Last year, Lisa Rightmire, a student of Hathaway from the University of Memphis, spent the entire summer measuring magnetic elements. When she plotted their speeds vs. time, she noticed how fast the conveyor belt has been going.

A note about “fast”: The Great Conveyor Belt is one of the biggest things in the whole solar system and by human standards it moves with massive slowness. “Fast” in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second (20 to 30 miles per hour). A good bicyclist could easily keep up.

Below: The velocity of the Great Conveyor Belt (a.k.a. “meridianal flow”) since 1996. Note the higher speeds after ~2004. credit: Hathaway and Rightmire, 2010. [larger image]

The speed-up was surprising on two levels.

First, it coincided with the deepest solar minimum in nearly 100 years, contradicting models that say a fast-moving belt should boost sunspot production. The basic idea is that the belt sweeps up magnetic fields from the sun’s surface and drags them down to the sun’s inner dynamo. There the fields are amplified to form the underpinnings of new sunspots. A fast-moving belt should accelerate this process.

So where have all the sunspots been? The solar minimum of 2008-2009 was unusually deep and now the sun appears to be on the verge of a weak solar cycle.

Instead of boosting sunspots, Hathaway believes that a fast-moving Conveyor Belt can instead suppress them “by counteracting magnetic diffusion at the sun’s equator.” He describes the process in detail in Science (“Variations in the Sun’s Meridional Flow over a Solar Cycle,” 12 March 2010, v327, 1350-1352).

The second surprise has to do with the bottom of the Conveyor Belt.

SOHO can only clock the motions of the visible top layer. The bottom is hidden by ~200,000 kilometers of overlying plasma. Nevertheless, an estimate of its speed can be made by tracking sunspots.

“Sunspots are supposedly rooted to the bottom of the belt,” says Hathaway. “So the motion of sunspots tells us how fast the belt is moving down there.”

He’s done that—plotted sunspot speeds vs. time since 1996—and the results don’t make sense. “While the top of the conveyor belt has been moving at record-high speed, the bottom seems to be moving at record-low speed. Another contradiction.”

Above: An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). Launched in Feb. 2010, SDO will be able to look inside the sun to study the conveyor belt in greater detail, perhaps solving the mysteries Hathaway and Rightmire have uncovered. [larger image]

Could it be that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? “That’s one possibility” he notes. “Sunspots could be moving because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt.”

What researchers really need is a good look deep inside the sun. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010, will provide that when its instruments come online later this year. SDO is able to map the sun’s interior using a technique called helioseismology. SOHO can do the same thing, but not well enough to trace the Great Conveyor Belt all the way around. SDO’s advanced sensors might reveal the complete circuit.

And then…? “It could be the missing piece we need to forecast the whole solar cycle,” says Hathaway.

Stay tuned for that.

Advertisements

255 thoughts on “Hathaway on the solar conveyor belt and deep solar minimum

  1. He said the exact opposite less than four years ago.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    Long Range Solar Forecast 05.10.2006
    Solar Cycle 25 peaking around 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries.
    May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”

  2. More from Hathaway’s 2006 article. His numbers are off by more than order of magnitude from what he is saying now.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”

  3. I’ll take whatever Hathaway says with a grain of salt. This guy has been pretty much wrong about everything for the past decade if not longer. I still remember his prediction about how this was going to be a huge cycle peaking at over 150 in less then two years.

  4. Well, another thing we thought we understood that isn’t quite what we expected… At least the Solar guys are willing to admit they only have a tiny clue and really need to work on it more (and learn some really fun stuff in the process…). Wonder when the Climate “scientists” will figure out that doing Real Science ™ is a whole lot more fun than being a political hack…

  5. They’re modest and not making predictions hundreds of years into the future about how the solar cycle will roast/freeze us. Too bad. They’ll probably be boxing groceries in a few years when all science funding is vacuumed up by the warmistas. Why should we bother with understanding the Sun when the Oil companies are bake us in a CO2 greenhouse?

  6. ahhh when Scientists fail to make good use of their current grants and go off on wild goose chases and then discover that they really didn’t know anything at all…. we’re suppose to give them more money and funding to waste on their curiousity!?
    What arrogance.

  7. Just a few years ago it was settled science.
    NOAA said with great fanfare that they had a model that was 99% accurate. In December 2006, Hathaway said this, ” Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”

  8. Based on the above comments – and recent climategate revelations, of course – I’m really getting nervous about the real state of science as a whole. As a retired engineer who relied upon solid physics and math my whole career, I have to say this is getting disconcerting, to say the least!

  9. Chris (20:43:05) : “Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. Sort of like climate science.”
    No, not at all like climate science. AFAIK, (1) He hasn’t said “the science is settled.” (2) He isn’t up to his elbows in conflicting interest investments. (3) He hasn’t perverted the peer review process. (4) He hasn’t called conflicting opinions “voodoo” or “flat earth” science. (5) He hasn’t conspired to prevent publication of alternate views. (6) Hasn’t hidden any declines. (7) He hasn’t destroyed, hidden, or fudged any data. (8) He hasn’t refused to comply with any FOI requests. And so on.
    Science is sort of an “as you go along” activity, largely trial-and-error. Remember, as observational astronomers say, “Astrophysical accuracy means you got the decimal point in the right place.” Hathaway is a genuine scientist. He’s just a little back-ordered on success lately. It’s part of the process.

  10. I asked my UI astronomy professor, Dr. Jim Kaler (emeritus) about this and he emailed this reply:
    “To the question — I have NO idea, and neither does anybody else at this
    point. the sun has been extremely quiet since the end of the last cycle,
    unusually so, so one cannot rul eout a new extended minimum, yet the
    cycle could just be delayed — it’s too early to tell. The people who
    thought they could predict this one seem to have failed, but all we can do
    for now is to wait it out. I do not think climate models know quite what
    to do with solar activity, but that’s just an opinion. One problem is how
    this all factors into the politics of global warming.”
    Wise words from a fantastic instructor! I am still expecting the sun to slip back, but every time I say that, more pesky spots show up! Grrrr!!

  11. Having read both articles I don’t see any contradiction. The original article was only discussing the speed of sun spots thought to be attached to the lower part of the conveyor belt.
    This new article is now adding a new dimension the speed of the upper part of the conveyor belt which is surprisingly much faster than the lower part. This makes the assumption that sun spots are attached to the lower part of the belt questionable. That’s why they hope the new satellite will allow them to see and measure the speed of the lower part more directly to see it is really as slow as was thought.

  12. The better questions you ask the better answers you get, when you frame the question too tightly, your answers don’t fit the ideas you had. Real science will show you how much you didn’t even have a clue about when you started.
    I prefer to let the data speak for itself. It never lies, even if you don’t understand what it is saying.

  13. It is refreshing to hear of honest science at NASA afer all “climatologist” propaganda. Hathaway et al. construct theories, expose them to critics, test and if proven wrong replace them.
    “He said the exact opposite less than four years ago.”
    But for a scientist that’s exactly the right thing to do if he has been proven wrong, isn’t it?
    “Conjectures and refutations”

  14. I can only guess as yo whats up with Hathaway’s flip flopping on the velocity. It does seem a bit odd that he doesn’t mention it. Perhaps its in the Science article.

  15. kim (20:59:57) :
    That’s a pretty egregious contradiction Steve Goddard has highlighted. Help, Leif.
    It is honorable to learn and to change your mind when evidence does not support your ideas. David Hathaway is doing this right [there is no better believer than a reformed sinner 🙂 ].
    Last autumn I gave a talk on Solar Cycle Prediction at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, AZ., that touched on several of the points David brings up: http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf

  16. Might be helpful if these guys would stop acting like fortune tellers reading chicken entrails, and just stick to the basic reporting of observations, without elaboration. The perception is rapidly becoming such that whenever anyone with a title including the terms “climate” and “scientist” uses a phrase similar to “what this might mean”, it’s a red flag they’re about to pull something out of their arses, no matter how elementary the supposition may seem to be.
    Grabbing headlines is ultimately a myopic tactic, particularly if it earns the “boy who cried wolf” label. And it shouldn’t be a race to be more wrong, more often, than Ehrlich.

  17. The Sun is one of the most fascinating things I know of and definitely one of the most subtle things. The closer we study it with increasingly better tools the more it defies our understanding. When you compare billions of years of Solar history to SOHO’s short tenure from 1996, it seems arrogant to assume we have it all figured out. Yet we continue to stumble over the same concept of “the science is settled” with a limited data set.

  18. “It could be the missing piece we need to forecast the whole solar cycle,” says Hathaway.
    That not the proper way to end a research article if they want more money to study the problem further!!! Please repeat after me… Much research (and money) will be needed to find out exactly what the sun is up to.
    If one side is slowing down and the other side accelerating… something will snap!

  19. All this solar conveyor belt stuff is silly — silly to think any artefacts survive deep within the sun. Sunspots are obviously manifested locally. Bad science going on here.

  20. Throwing solar scientists in the same boat as the AGW’ers is folly methinks. There’s quite a difference between being incorrect about a particular theory and being wrong and trying to fool yourself and everyone else that your theory is correct.
    I don’t mind Scientists being wrong repeatedly as long as they are working in earnest and actually have the courage to make a prediction based on their theory.
    AGW’ers fail to do any real science. They are truly anti-science.

  21. “It’s a little like measuring the speed of a river on Earth by clocking the leaves and twigs floating downstream,” Hathaway explains.
    Hmmm, maybe he should be working with University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science oceanographer Dr. Lou Codispoti instead of studying the sun. Maybe he can help him figure out what’s really going on with the low oxygen river mouth zones.

  22. I think we will eventually realize the instruments we have been measuring solar radiations are indeed inadequate to capture the true total solar irradiation (TSI) across the entire spectrum and we did, in fact, just went through a 66 year grand solar maximum which did cause a secular step rise in the TSI.
    That active period seems over, right on time, nine cycles time three from ~Sept 1699. The physics behind this will have to follow proper science pathways to shed light in that area, but only if the correct questions are probed. Now a pause of up to nine sub-normal cycles should follow. If my calculations are correct, that would bring the earth back to the same thermal energy level it was in 1699, all the energy (360 years of sunspot information to gain a little glimpse of what is going on.
    That is just from a personal standpoint. I keep trying to disprove myself but can’t to date.

  23. I wonder if there will be discussions of alternative analysis of the sun structure here? I’m speaking of things like the iron sun idea, and the planetary effects on the center of solar system. Seems like a reasonable place for such to arise. Obviously, Hathaway doesn’t have much of a clue going for himself based on the last several years of missing the bottom.

  24. Anthony/mods:
    Drats! A less than symbol cut off half the comment again! If you can replace the previous with this total comment. Gotta remember never to use them!
    I think we will eventually realize the instruments we have been measuring solar radiations are indeed inadequate to capture the true total solar irradiation (TSI) across the entire spectrum and we did, in fact, just went through a 66 year grand solar maximum which did cause a secular step rise in the TSI.
    That active period seems over, right on time, nine cycles time three from ~Sept 1699. The physics behind this will have to follow proper science pathways to shed light in that area, but only if the correct questions are probed. Now a pause of up to nine sub-normal cycles should follow. If my calculations are correct, that would bring the earth back to the same thermal energy level it was in 1699, all the energy (greater 1ºC) deep as measured in bore holes and the depths of the oceans will have dissipated. I could very well be wrong but nothing seems to have shaken my view to date.
    If this multi-century (9 cycles per 99.7 years x 4) beat should ever prove true, the next grand maximum should not kick over until around 2339-2340. The sun is in the prime of its life span, I have found no reason to believe that its beats and cycles don’t repeat like clockwork. The only thing is we have not had precision electronic components on telescopes or satellites long enough to tell if ours and other similar class G stars also have these extremely long beats, but more time will cure that. At least we have greater than 360 years of sunspot information to gain a little glimpse of what is going on.
    This is just my personal view.

  25. As a ham radio operator, I have been waiting a long time for cycle 24 to get going. Whimper at best – so far. I think I’ll look out the window & look at the thermometer in the morning to see how to dress – as I have been for 50 years. I’m growing weary of all these predictions.

  26. It seems like an appropriate time to note NASA’s and David Hathaway’s impressively sensational and amazingly inaccurate solar predictions over the last 7 years. Dr. Tony Phillips of NASA gets credit for much of the unseemly sensationalism, but Hathaway gets credit for many of the shoddy predictions, especially this one from July 11, 2008, “Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.”
    “So says NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “There have been some reports lately that Solar Minimum is lasting longer than it should. That’s not true. The ongoing lull in sunspot number is well within historic norms for the solar cycle.”
    This report, that there’s nothing to report, is newsworthy because of a growing buzz in lay and academic circles that something is wrong with the sun. Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots declared one recent press release. A careful look at the data, however, suggests otherwise.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
    Apparently Hathaway has re-thunk his prediction, given that he states in his current article that, “I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we’ve been experiencing,” says Hathaway.” Per the following summary of NASA solar press releases over the last 7 years it seems that Hathaway, Dr. Tony Phillips and NASA, at minimum are awful forecasters…
    Nov 12, 2003: “The Sun Goes Haywire – Solar maximum is years past, yet the sun has been remarkably active lately. Is the sunspot cycle broken?”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/12nov_haywire.htm
    Oct 18, 2004: “Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say scientists, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/18oct_solarminimum.htm
    May 5, 2005: “Solar Myth – With solar minimum near, the sun continues to be surprisingly active.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/05may_solarmyth.htm
    Sept 15, 2005: “Solar Minimum Explodes – Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_solarminexplodes.htm
    Aug 15th, 2006: “Backward Sunspot – A strange little sunspot may herald the coming of one of the stormiest solar cycles in decades.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15aug_backwards.htm
    Dec 21, 2006 “Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle – Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
    Dec 14, 2007 “Is a New Solar Cycle Beginning? – The solar physics community is abuzz this week. ”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm
    Jan 10, 2008: “Solar Cycle 24 – Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
    March 28, 2008: “Old Solar Cycle Returns – Barely three months after forecasters announced the beginning of new Solar Cycle 24, old Solar Cycle 23 has returned.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm
    July 11, 2008: “What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) – Stop the presses! The sun is behaving normally.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
    Sept. 30, 2008: “Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
    – Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low – We’re experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
    Nov. 7, 2008: The Sun Shows Signs of Life – I think solar minimum is behind us”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/07nov_signsoflife.htm
    April 1, 2009: Deep Solar Minimum – We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum – This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
    May 29, 2009: “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
    June 17, 2009: “Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved? The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
    September 3, 2009: “Are Sunspots Disappearing? – The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing?
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
    September 29, 2009 “Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High – In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. “The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm
    I still can’t believe that I’m paying for this crap. NASA, I want a refund. And I’d like to use it to pay Leif for his thoughts on the subject…

  27. wayne (22:13:31) :
    I think we will eventually realize the instruments we have been measuring solar radiations are indeed inadequate to capture the true total solar irradiation (TSI) across the entire spectrum
    You thinking is rooted in ignorance. We do measure the total energy of solar radiation across the entire spectrum.

  28. Look at that chart!
    The sun’s conveyor belt is at it’s highest levels in recorded history! It could be we have past the point of no return and we are in for a devastating period of runaway solar conveyor belt change.
    We are reasonably confidant that earth bound carbon emissions are the cause of the acceleration since we can confidantly say that the increased speed is unrelated to (earthly) volcanic forcings.
    It may not end up helping, but just to be safe, we should cut back emissions to 1980s levels and hope it is not too little too late to slow down the devastating conveyor.
    James

  29. Still waiting for an explanation. How can you get theory right when you can’t even measure within an order of magnitude?
    May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.” Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
    ——
    A note about “fast”: The Great Conveyor Belt is one of the biggest things in the whole solar system and by human standards it moves with massive slowness. “Fast” in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second (20 to 30 miles per hour). A good bicyclist could easily keep up.

  30. Steve Goddard (20:39:50) :
    More from Hathaway’s 2006 article. His numbers are off by more than order of magnitude from what he is saying now.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
    Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
    =============
    Two key sentences:
    “Hathaway has been monitoring the conveyor belt using data from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO).”
    “SOHO’s dataset extends all the way back to 1996 and spans a complete solar cycle.”
    Perhaps he wasn’t yet using the SOHO dataset when he wrote the 1996 article. That might explain the difference.

  31. Leif Svalgaard (22:33:41) :
    I expected your comeback. I’ve read the user and calibration radiometer manuals. I know to you the machines data is truth, any measurement of the sun output is already known, you have said it to me many times.
    However, my experiences in life with machines, especially when measuring, have left me with a different view of their absoluteness, performance, and best design.

  32. Leif Svalgaard: “It is honorable to learn and to change your mind when evidence does not support your ideas. David Hathaway is doing this right [there is no better believer than a reformed sinner 🙂 ].”
    I remember you defending Hathaway one time when my [premature] criticism discounted him. Lesson learned on my part.
    Hathaway is a good scientist. He is just reporting what he sees.
    I think those errant spaceweather charts from 2009 and 2008 might have been influenced by some marketing guru.
    But boy was that person ever wrong….
    I’m on to Hathaway. He just reports and analyzes what he observes.
    So…regardless of slowed down conveyor belt or sped up one….he reports it.
    That is good science.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  33. Mark.R (22:43:50) :
    the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It’s not much – just 15 cm per year – but since that’s 100 times greater than the measurement error, something must really be pushing Earth outward. But what?
    The Sun is losing its mass:
    1) by radiating away 4 million tons per second
    2) by emitting a similar amount as solar wind
    Thus the gravitational force that binds the Earth to the Sun is decreasing and the Earth recedes.

  34. Re- brand Mann’s GCM. I suggest calling it the Solar Climate Uber Model or SCUM and having Mann take Hathaways’s data, let Phil digest and process it and run it through Mann’s SCUM so that he can project a Great Solar Hockey stick showing Anthropogenic Spasmodic Solar Wind Intergalactic Periodic Excursions. The UN can then expand the purview of the IPCC to at least the solar system. I am sure that we will find that we have to produce a plan for Solar Climate Control to prevent anthropogenic solar warming involving transfer of trillions of dollars to Martians and Venusians

  35. This solar conveyor bely system seems interestingly analagous to the earth’s Hadley cell circulation away from the equator:
    http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3sj.html
    How fast does the sun rotate (if at all)? Does this affect the conveyor belt in a way similar to the effect of earth’s rotation on the Hadley cells?

  36. I agree with savethesharks. You must admit that this is refreshing:
    Hathaway says “The high speed of the conveyor belt challenges existing models of the solar cycle and it has forced us back to the drawing board for new ideas.”
    Going back for fresh ideas when reality “challenges existing models.”
    That’s starting to sound more like real science. Its the people who claim to be correct all the time who are the problem. The debate is never over.

  37. I do not pretend to be a scientist, but nothing I read in this post shocked me – he’s not making any wild predictions, as far as I can see, just observing the satellite data, asking questions and envisaging possible interpretations. That’s the way it should be and I for one don’t begrudge a scientist being funded to do so and will be “staying tuned for that”.
    What I do find depressing here is that the antics of rent-seeking bad climate scientists aggressively defending their patch and claiming that their science is settled are now giving rise to a depressing dog-in-the-manger attitude prevalent in many of the comments above.
    Thank goodness for the voice of reason from people like Leif and Richard Holle.

  38. Mark.R (22:43:50) :
    something must really be pushing Earth outward. But what?
    They suggest tides raised by the Earth on the Sun.I have not studied the article so I don’t know, but I’ll assume that they have some estimate of the size of the effect and that it matches the observations. But the other planets [especially Venus and Jupiter] also raises tides on the Sun, in fact, combined seven times as high as the Earth tides, so something doesn’t match up here. I’ll go with the mass loss. The solar wind also slows the Sun a tiny bit through it magnetic field, so there are many things that could work together to produce those subtle effects.

  39. “The high speed of the conveyor belt challenges existing models of the solar cycle and it has forced us back to the drawing board for new ideas.”
    This is why people should not listen to Al Gore when he says that the science is settled, the debate is over.

  40. Mark.R (22:43:50) :
    Think it is not so directly the angular momentum as the loss of mass. As the mass drops (is converted to energy) the orbit expands due to decrease in the gravitational field, the angular momentum would then be affected in that it is the radius vector crossed by the velocity vector (L = r X v). So the mass loss is causing the orbit change which is changing the loss in angular momentum.
    However, the change in orbit cannot circularly change without also a change in orbital velocity. I have often been curios on that exact aspect, is it the solar head wind the earth plows through which slows the earth’s orbital velocity and therefore counters increase in the distance from the earth to the sun? Must be but don’t know that as a fact.

  41. Thank you wayne,leif, and just the facts and all the rest of you for the most interesting subject. A drop in world temps would be catastrophic for the planet, but in a weird way im longing for it just to see all the warmists squirm, although leif often bursts my bubble with inconvenient facts and science,Grrr!
    Please, more sun stuff from you educated types!
    P S is there a site i can go to for this stuff?

  42. I think that we need to take a step back and look at the big picture. We don’t understand how the sun works, we don’t understand how the clouds work, we barely understand how the oceans work and volcanic activity is a complete wild card. Our understanding of Earth’s climate system is rudimentary at best.
    We have 130 years of highly suspect surface temperature data and 31 years of reasonably accurate satellite data, on an approximately 4,500,000,000 year old planet. Our understanding of the history of Earth’s climate system and its average temperature is rudimentary at best.
    Based on our limited understanding of Earth’s climate system, any predictions about Earth’s climate system and the long term trajectory of its average temperature are, at best, educated guesses. We are still learning how to accurately measure Earth’s temperature, much less accurately predict it 50 – 100 years into the future. Those who claim to be able to accurately predict the long term trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s average temperature, are either deluding themselves, or lying.

  43. Just The Facts (22:22:03)
    Dr. Tony Phillips isn’t a forecaster, he is the production editor of SpaceWeather.com I don’t think he embellishes anything but does work with the person behind the story somewhat, to help convey the meaning to the general public. Dr. Phillips is only the messenger…

  44. Leif,
    Re: Your talk at Solar Cycle Prediction at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, AZ. [ http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle.pdf ]
    In your CONCLUSION you quoted Agnes M. Clerke, A Popular History of Astronomy During the Nineteenth Century, page 163, 4th edition, A. & C.
    Black, London, 1902. as follows:
    “It cannot be said that much progress has been made towards the disclosure of the cause, or causes, of the sun-spot cycle. Most thinkers on this difficult subject provide a quasi-explanation of the periodicity through certain assumed vicissitudes affecting internal processes. In all these theories, however, the course of transition is arbitrarily arranged to suit a period, which imposes itself as a fact peremptorily claiming admittance, while obstinately defying explanation”
    There has been since 1902 a +100 years of more observations, with increasing detection/instrumentation technology. In the most recent decades satellites where added to study of the sun. Many more minds have looked at the solar dynamics.
    Leif, so, are you suggesting that in 2010 after the vast increase in data since 1902 we still await a validated theory of solar dynamics that was lacking in 1902?
    What are the 2010 front runner theories?
    John

  45. There’s an interesting TV series on the Solar System just started on BBC2 in the UK, presented by Professor Brian Cox. In the first instalment, Empire of the Sun, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qyxfb, 18minutes in, he introduces the work of Argentinean astrophysicist, Pablo JD Mauas, linking the flow of water in the Amazonian Iguazu and Parana Rivers to sunspots. The graph of sunspot activity versus river flow seems to show a remarkable correlation since 1904.
    Cox states that as the suns nuclear reactor burns at a steady rate he’s unable to account for the linkage. I don’t know whether Cox intended it, but it’s remarkable evidence of natural climate change and maybe could be explained by Svensmarks’ cosmic rays and clouds theory

  46. Wayne, yes me too – I’m with you on that one. Don’t trust anything that has to be plugged in, started up, cranked, switched on, or has a mouth.

  47. O/T, but you absolutely gotta see this. An Australan emeritus professor and climate activist has lashed out at the Large Hadron Collider project calling it just a “nuclear billiards machine” and he wants the money instead given to climate scientists. He also doesn’t like money being spent on space research.
    Just the highlights of his rant:
    [snip] During the hour long media briefing, Lowe
    •ridiculed the scientists working on the Large Hadron Collider, saying money would be better spent by climate scientists
    •argued that for propaganda purposes the media should hype-up individual weather events – such as floods in Mozambique – as proof of climate change
    •claimed Hurricane Katrina was clearly caused by climate change
    •claimed a conspiracy of white, Anglo Celtic elderly males was behind the skeptic movement
    •with NZ government social scientist Karen Cronin advocated researching how to foment enough anger in the public that governments who refused to take climate action could be “pushed out of the way” in a political upheaval
    [snip]
    Apparently these conversations took place in a quiet briefing for sympathetic journalists following a low-key conference to figure out how to re-hype climate change to the public
    …the recordings are on Ian Wishart’s site
    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2010/03/breaking-news-top-aussie-climate-scientist-goes-feral-on-skeptics-and-fellow-scientists.html

  48. So, let me recapitulate once again:- In 2001, UNIPCC Third Assessment Report, we had a “very low level of scientific understanding” of how the effects of solar forcing worked, then again in 2007 UNIPCC Fourth Assessment Report we had moved forward to a “low level if scientific understanding! Is Dr Hathaway now subtley suggesting that we have been relegated back to having a “very low level of scientific understanding”? I just love that settled science stuff, stops people thinking too hard.
    I know Leif will chastise me for it, but come on guys, I think our ancestors had better luck worshipping the dammned thing rather than trying to understand it, so far we would have fared no worse! Why do some of us celebrate the Harvest Festival? Now, where can I find a sacrificial virgin?

  49. I like this note that appeared on another blog year ago (Mar 16, 2009)
    Dr. Hathaway is the best-known and widely respected NASA scientist. His advanced prediction methodology is based on a graphic analysis, usually involves an old IHV chart and a ruler, but a book edge will do. To achieve his amazingly successful predictions, he draws a line from any peak of the chart to about +80 degrees(if a protractor available), if not, then an eye-ball estimate will do, roughly in the North-North East direction.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/cycle24/hathaway1_strip2.jpg
    NASA’s Dr. Hathaway confirms that his method is based on the most advanced scientific research, stating that more out of date is the IHV chart (currently he favours 6 years), more accurate the prediction. He enthuses about the science involved:
    “We don’t know why this works, the underlying physics is a mystery to us, but it does work”.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
    He claims a good record 12/12, but a recent peer reviewed paper agreed to give him 8/12 which makes it a respectable 66%.
    His latest prediction for SC24 varies somewhere from 80 to 140. This, admittedly tiny degree of uncertainty, is not due to any problems with his advanced science theory, but to simplify process, being away from the base and since frequency of prediction had to be increased recently, he had to shift back and forth his line drawing, using the edge of an old credit card.
    NASA said Dr. Hathaway is currently unavailable for an interview, since his latest work is a hash-hash job coded “Shifting Sands of Kalahari”, but a preview has been leaked to numerous websites, disguised as the well known SC24 prediction animation. A rival suggested that he is actually trekking through the Wandering Dunes of Nevada desert, looking for an inspiration for his latest estimate of SC24 ramp up. http://orhanc.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/desert-travel-walk.jpg
    (signed radun)

  50. savethesharks (23:03:42) :
    I agree. This is science. One tries to theorize over what one observes. And modify along the way when new observations makes new inputs.
    NASA needs to focus on the Sun, and in-out radiaton to-from the Earth. As seen from space.
    NASA needs to distance themselves from Earth-bound sciences like what Hansen is doing.
    Otherwise they will destroy the publics thrust in NASA.
    Which is already on a decline.

  51. We have 2 options.
    1-) Wait about 86 years or so, study the sun as much as possible in the meantime.
    2-) Immediately commence a hydrogen trading scheme. You just can’t keep burning up all that hydrogen and not expect anything to happen.

  52. Re James (22:40:27) :
    The sun’s conveyor belt is at it’s highest levels in recorded history! It could be we have past the point of no return and we are in for a devastating period of runaway solar conveyor belt change.

    Please don’t mention runaway conveyor belts in the context of large amounts of energetic plasma. When conveyor belts snap or buckle, bad things tend to happen. A repeat of the Carrington event now would be bad enough :p
    (thanks again to Leif et al for reading suggestions. The sun is a truly fascinating beast)

  53. – Great Conveyor Belt (a.k.a. “meridianal flow”)
    Meridianal flow was analysed in order to explain its relationship to the strength of magnetic Polar Field. PF is used, by one or two most respected solar scientists of the day, to predict maxima of the forthcoming cycles.
    In this respect notable are works by two well known research centres:
    Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington
    by Wang , Lean and Sheeley
    and
    Max-Planck-Institut from Germany
    by S. K. Solanki- I. Baumann – D. Schmitt – M. Schüssler
    Results of their theoretical research are summarised graphically as shown in here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
    Two relevant papers are:
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
    and
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html#tb1

  54. Steve Goddard,
    You said:
    More from Hathaway’s 2006 article. His numbers are off by more than order of magnitude from what he is saying now.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
    Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
    My reply:
    What he is saying is actually factually correct. If I am not mistaken, he is refering to the drift velocity of the sunspots which he believes are tied to the motion at the bottom of the conveyor belt. This motion from the polar regions to the Solar Equator is typically ~ 1m/sec. This needs to be compared with the surface flow back to poles from the Equator, which typically takes place at ~ 10m/sec.
    The simple reason for the difference in flow speeds is density. It is
    density x velocity which must remain roughly the same in order to mainatin a steady mass flux around the conveyor belt.
    Hence, the high density at the base of the Sun’s convective layer means that the flow has to be slower in order to maintain the same mass flux.

  55. ” that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? “That’s one possibility” he notes. “Sunspots could be moving because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt.””
    Once the sun was green and full of water. But the Sun people started burning fossil fuels. Soon the greenhouse effect made the sun hotter and hotter, so hot that the Sun people stayed in their sun cities and equipped them with huge A/C units. The exhaust heat from these fusion driven units was so hot that it was pure plasma and the sun became hotter still.
    Today we can see the cities of the Sun people as sunspots. They float on the molten surface of the sun and are sometimes drawn back into the depth of the Sun only to reappear several decades later at a different place.
    Bang bang you’re dead brush your teeth and go to bed…

  56. Just the facts: Notice if anyone will take note. This is the type of responses that we need It does list in detail that NASA is not very professional in this area anyway… Any organization that is unable to eject J Hansen cannot be professional

  57. @Philip T. Downman (21:38:02)
    ————————————————————-
    He said the exact opposite less than four years ago.
    ————————————————————-
    “But for a scientist that’s exactly the right thing to do if he has been proven wrong, isn’t it?”
    If he accepted the fact that he _could_ be wrong in both cases: yes
    If he rang the alarm bell in both cases (stephen S., was iceage alarm – now we al gonna burn): no

  58. I’m kinda lost here. I read that entire article twice and never saw the word “robust”. I’m not sure what to make of this. Without something being robust, I don’t really know what to do.

  59. I got no qualms with Hathaway being wrong on previous occasions….. Science is about being wrong, usually more times than you are right…. Disproving hypothesis’s and changing to another hypothesis to explain observations is what scientists do.
    … at least he isn’t discarding data so that his hypothesis or predictions remains intact…. That’s what we’ve all been whinging about with the AGW’ers.
    I applaud his continued enthusiasm for his chosen field… Must be an exciting time now, with a new satellite up an’ all:-)

  60. Where’s the Coriolis force in all this?
    Where’s a current on (in) a spherical body, there’s Coriolis force, I learned in Physics.
    And what would/could Coriolis force add to this matter?

  61. From the number of different predictions about the solar cycle on Leif’s presentation it looks like no one really has a clue! Maybe it’s chaotic like the climate? And they’re trying to tell us that they can model chaos?

  62. If the plasma is moving with a greater momentum would that make it less vulnerable to the formation of sunspots?

  63. I do not have any problem with the Science behind Hathaway, only the sensational way it is reported.
    It appears to me someone “Lisa Rightmire, a student of Hathaway from the University of Memphis” has finally done what should have been done all along and it has made their previous work and pronouncements look foolish.

  64. I vividly recall as a second year geology student, ‘Lo, all those years ago’, – 42 actually, – writing as part of a response to a question on a solar cause for the Pleistocene Ice Ages, “The Sun’s energy output is relatively constant and not variable enough to cause or end an Ice Age. Solar physics are well understood.”
    I blush to recall the casual certainty of that answer, but I was repeating the “Consensus” at the time as it was taught to me. It seems that the more we know, it shows us how little we know.
    Perhaps the Sun is a barely perceptible variable star on a scale of centuries ?.

  65. Leaves carried on the surface of a river – is either a clumsy analogy or an unwitting insight.The greatest velocity is somewhat below the surface and the lowest layer is a fraction of the flow rate,almost stagnant in slow moving,lamellar-flowing rivers. I think one should expect considerable turbulance in a highly fluid medium like the sun’s plasma where both fluid dynamics and high thermal events are at play. The river is closer to a conveyor than anything on the sun but even it is more complex than a conveyor. Let go of the conveyor analogy and maybe the data will make sense. It’s too late to save the cash spent on the bottom-of-the-conveyor-thingy but maybe it will detect the seismics of turbulence.

  66. The illustration shows symmetrical circulation patterns. If the pattern was rather more wedge-shaped and thicker at the base, then of course the lower stream would be slower than the upper.
    Any medium that is stretched has to move faster.
    .

  67. >>>Leif Svalgaard (23:11:05) :
    >>>Thus the gravitational force that binds the Earth to the Sun
    >>>is decreasing and the Earth recedes.
    Can the Sun not impart extra angular momentum to the Earth via gravitational field effects? Thus giving a larger orbit. Just a thought.
    .

  68. Give the buck a break!
    This is theory and he is close to understanding this belt.
    He has not incorporated that the sun has rotated every 24 days into his theory.
    Like the rest of the scientists on this planet, not a single one has incoparated the planets rotaion and just jumped on the theory end.
    Until recently I myself have been adjusting theories I went along until the science and every concievable end matched that there is no mistakes left out.
    I have been studying the circulation of this planet and it is quite simular due to rotation.
    He has just made the same mistake as everyone else and took a slice latterally of the sun as if it did not rotate.

  69. The question that begs asking is what drives these changes in speed of the suns conveyer belt? Is there a connection with solar motion of the large planets around the barycentre? The conveyers are not in a steady state so there must be some outside influence that is driving these changes. It is difficult to conceive how these appreciable changes could be internally driven within the sun. It appears the most logical place to look for an external driving force is the solar motion influences on the sun.

  70. It wasn;t but just a few years ago Hathaway said the conveyor belt was moving at an all time record low, and THAT was going to lead to an eventual minimum.
    Do they have any idea what they are talking about?

  71. http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1128&page=2#43477
    ” . . .
    interaction of the Sun’s magnetosphere and the Earth’s magnetosphere.
    For instance there were observations and a couple of papers pointing to observed
    heating in the upper atmosphere from this interaction.
    Second is the phenomena of our entire solar system as it moves through the
    Milky Way as discussed in some later papers in the AGU link I posted previously.
    Politically I am really focused on how Hathaway will over time acknowledge
    fellow NASA scientist Hung’s work on the barycenter and the solar cycle
    and then NASA itself admit the Sun might have something to do with
    climate modulation … even if its just indirect like the
    magnetosphere/cosmic ray/cloud formation thing.
    Hathaway just started talking Solar Grand Minimum!
    . . .
    My climate model of stolen solar system barycentric phenomena says …
    1) This Solar Grand Minima will be a Dalton Type.
    2) We will get 2 more, possibly a Maunder type after that (172*2 ys)
    3) The next one after will be a barycenter ‘phase change’ maximum (MWP repeat).
    4) Then a Wolf … Sporer repeat leading into the end of the Holocene
    interglacial and into the next glaciation of this late Pleistocene Ice Age
    (< millenium to happen).
    … and I couch that with the possibility some factor pushes us to the
    preMilankovitch (5 100k yr cycles) period where we did 50/50 glaciation
    and interglacial. I'm doubtfull however because the paleo record indicates
    we are on the low side … but when you blow up the relatively stability
    of the climate (as per Lindzen) with T on the 'y axis' … who knows at this point?
    . . . "
    Just a few thoughts on
    Hathaway NASA and
    also barycenter 'phase change' maximum.

  72. “Jimmy Haigh (03:27:40) :
    From the number of different predictions about the solar cycle on Leif’s presentation it looks like no one really has a clue! Maybe it’s chaotic like the climate? And they’re trying to tell us that they can model chaos”
    While you can’t predict the exact state of a chaotic system for a given moment far in the future, you can nevertheless model its general behaviour if your model is good enough.
    For the same reason, it’s not enough to dismiss GCMs with a casual “Oh it’s chaotic, you can’t predict anything” remark. There are other valid reasons to reject the projections of current GCMs, namely that they have insufficient, maybe even incorrect modeling of humidity, ocean currents and clouds.

  73. The carona of the sun is quite simular to our outer atmosphere.
    Gases compressed become liquid. This liquid from rotation is compressed and as the sun slows, it expands.
    The has a much greater mass that pulls much of the gases back on itself.

  74. Leif,
    The silence is deafening:
    2006
    The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl…In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
    2010
    The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years…The Great Conveyor Belt is one of the biggest things in the whole solar system and by human standards it moves with massive slowness. “Fast” in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second ”
    His graph shows the peak in 2006, right when the he previously claimed the record minimum. This isn’t an issue of “theory” or “changing his mind”, rather it is an indication of a much more serious fundamental data collection problem.

  75. In reference to the changing Earth orbit, there are other orbiting bodies that change the shape of our orbit. The Earth’s orbit is becoming more elliptical each year as influenced by the outer planets.
    The next ice age is where we are heading.

  76. roger samson (04:29:41) :
    The question that begs asking is what drives these changes in speed of the suns conveyer belt? Is there a connection with solar motion of the large planets around the barycentre? The conveyers are not in a steady state so there must be some outside influence that is driving these changes. It is difficult to conceive how these appreciable changes could be internally driven within the sun. It appears the most logical place to look for an external driving force is the solar motion influences on the sun.
    The suns rotation and activity is very simular to our pressure sytems that move in the hemispheres.
    We have 3 circulation systems of the lower atmosphere The Northern Hemisphere, the Equatorial Region and the Southern Hemisphere.
    Through rotation, the Equatorial region runs across the Equator keeping split the Hemispheres. The Hemispheres circulation runs from Poles to Equator and back again.

  77. So the big questions remains. What influences the speed of the meridional flow?
    Could it be related to rotation velocity?

  78. My theory on sunspots?
    Mass (meteors, debris or other foreign objects) hitting the sun.
    Remember, our solar system is moving at an incredible speed through space and our larges target with the most mass is the sun.

  79. STEPHEN PARKER (23:46:47) :
    Thank you wayne,leif, and just the facts and all the rest of you for the most interesting subject. A drop in world temps would be catastrophic for the planet, but in a weird way im longing for it just to see all the warmists squirm, although leif often bursts my bubble with inconvenient facts and science,Grrr!
    Please, more sun stuff from you educated types!
    P S is there a site i can go to for this stuff?

    Well, even if my crazy view were to happen there is going to be no catastrophic drop, not from my viewpoint. Just a very slow drop back to where we were 200-300 years ago. I say 200 or 300 because around 1810 it was nearly as cold as around 1700, roughly. If you can accept that we did in fact warm and if you can accept that it was primarily solar induced and accepting even the high amount stated by some AGW proponents (1ºC), it will take that same many years to bring us back to before the grand maximum, very slowly, just like it went up, very slowly. There are some assumptions there; one is co2 means very little due to h2o’s huge predominance, h2o – co2 band overlaps, h2o’s ability to change states, and clouds properties themselves.
    My view was built solely upon the international SSN number series for we have no better data to look at without jumping to proxies and proxies must be taken very carefully as being real data. I’m not saying they are necessarily wrong, just usually questionable because other factors can change the same proxy leaving more questions. It’s much like temperature measurements. I have seen two foot long mercury thermometers you could read accurately to one-tenth of a degree. We usually now replace them with electronic thermometers that do good to be accurate to one degree over long periods without recalibration, sometimes two degrees. Are you going to question readings taken in 1900 by eye or readings taken in 2009 electronically as being correct?
    CORRECTION to wayne (22:20:12): And while I’m here, I am going to correct another correction of my correction! “(greater 1ºC)” should have read “(less than 1ºC)”. All of that because I typed a < symbol without HTML encoding. Whew! I made a mess of my first comment.

  80. KimW (03:37:25) :
    (…) It seems that the more we know, it shows us how little we know.

    Now there is a truly intelligent statement!

  81. Clive E Burkland (04:58:11) :
    “So the big questions remains. What influences the speed of the meridional flow? Could it be related to rotation velocity?”
    I suggest take a look at the PF equation numbers (2×11.862 and 19.859) in the formula http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
    which is an excellent agreement with research done by Hulburt Center for Space Research (by Wang , Lean and Sheeley) and Max-Planck-Institut ( Solanki et al)
    Two relevant papers are:
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html
    and
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html

  82. Very interesting.
    But a little bit risky?
    We have been aware of a correlation between sunspots and climate and now we see a correlation of the sunspots with conveyor belt speeds.
    If we force the climate scientists to accept solar forcing and abandon the idea of CO2 and anthropogenic forcing, they will be reluctant to give up all that money. They won’t like that.
    The great advantage of AGW is that none of that grant money seems to get spent on hardware. I doubt Phil Jones has spent a penny on thermometers and he certainly seems to have spent very little on computers or computer scientists and it seems that all they do is give each other work and send each other bills.
    But if they accept that the sun influences climate after all (something many of us assume intuitively to be the case based on our experience of the differences between summer and winter, night and day, cloudy or open skies, then the eco-engineers will take possession of the golden goose and cook it.
    They’ll say “Ok, while it isn’t CO2 and we (humanity) didn’t cause it, climate change is still bad for us and we’ll still have to spend lots of money on it.”
    The grey men will make money whatever, carbon trading or from the big engineering contracts.
    A space deployed sun shade is the most obvious beginning and that will be phenomenally expensive.
    The real danger is that all of this money spent might actually produce some changes in climate.
    My order of preference would be:
    1) spend no money on climate manipulation strategies.
    2) if you have to spend the money then spend it on something that won’t actually do anything
    3) never spend it on things that might do something… no good can come of it and we should remeber the law of unitneded consequences
    The problem is that option 1) is unrealistic because climate change is the biggest golden goose in history.
    So we are left with option (2).
    AGW is a phantom and demonstrably the majority of the money is actually not spent on anything at all.
    SOX emissions are good example. We in the west have spent a bundle of cash on taking sulphur out of our fuels but in the IPCC 4th report they can’t actually say what the current level of SOX emissions are. They don’t know if they’ve gone down up or stayed the same. i.e. other countries have increased their emission to fillt he void.
    Chances are CO2 measures will not be effective either but it doesn’t matter if they are since CO2 doesn’t seem to have a major influence on climate.
    But that’s the attraction, while they can’t actually benefit the climate, they aren’t likely to do it any real harm either.
    On the other hand, eco engineering means lots of money spent on hardware and whatever they do may produce dramatic and rapid results.
    The problem is that eco engineers can come up with lots of ways to insulate us from solar energy but none to replace it.
    It would be a shame if they sucecceed in shutting us off from the sun just when we are in a cooling spell because taking the particles out of thee atmosphere or removing the sun shade will only restore access to whatever level of solar heating is available, it can do nothing to replace the lost income while thee barriers were up.
    It doesn’t help that the AGW campaign has been about pursuading us that warm in bad and cold is good. It will be too late to complain about that when we are all blocks of ice.
    It would have been far better if this global warming scam had been a global cooling scam that said that CO2 was blocking the sun and causing us to cool down and cold is bad but warm is good.
    We could survive that scam.
    We can’t survive “warm is bad” and any effective intervention that can only reduce temperatures but not elevate them could be the end of us all.
    That means we have to support option 2 and that means we have to pretend that AGW is real and the only cause of warming and we have to pretend that carbons trading is effective and all we need to do.
    To understand the attraction of AGWE when faced with a dire alternative, I am remindeed of a story.
    A man takes the train to work, same compartment and same fellow passengers every day. He reads his paper, does the crossword then tears it into tiny pieces which he spreads all around him on the floor.
    After some months his fellow passengeres can endure no longer.
    “Excuse me,” says one, “but why do you do that?”
    “To keep the elephants away.” he replies.
    “But there are no elephants” objects the other.
    “I know, effective, isn’t it.”
    That’s the attraction of believing in AGW and Carbon trading. Even carbon sequestration, if they must. The proof of its effectiveness, is that there are no elephants even if there are no elephants in the first place.
    Better that than letting lose the big game hunters… the loss of the buffalo was not a good idea for the US.
    All in all, while the advance in knowledge is admirable, the problem is with its impact and it may be that anything which tends to shift us from stupid expensive but ultimately ineffectual stratagies toward stupid expensive but dangerously effective stratagies has to be avoided. Interventionist measures have a habit of suffering mission creep or a cascadee of one bad move leading to another.
    If the engineers have their way and we start to freeze, having effectively plunged us into a new ice age, they then have to find a way to turn up the wick on the sun, to look for ways to interefer with the conveyor belt.
    Or maybe they will see what can be done to spark up Jupiter…. it isn’t that far below the required mass for spontaneous ignition and maybe they can find a way to prime the pump as it were.
    Then we are in for a long sustained spider swallowing sequence (where the man who swallowed a fly that wriggled and tickled in side him ends up swallowing ever large animals.

  83. Leif Svalgaard (23:11:05) :
    I’ve read that the sun is constantly growing until it gets red and then shrinking before dying.
    How come the earth is moving away?

  84. Leif, you might have some detailed information on this question, why do the two hemispheres differ at all, being a perfectly symmetrical ball of gases and core? Active regions vary so markedly from north to south, is this difference driven solely by the overall sun-size magnetic field? Seems it must, I can’t think of anything else to break the symmetry. I’ve noticed before how the southern pole usually has a coronal hole but not the north, kind of like earth’s ozone hole, at the South Pole but not the North Pole. For that questions I draw a blank.

  85. The solar northern hemisphere has not been looking too bad so far in 2010.
    South is a little bit dead. Solar flux has yet to reach 100, L&P on still on track.
    This is getting pretty interesting.

  86. John Whitman (00:19:10) :
    Leif, so, are you suggesting that in 2010 after the vast increase in data since 1902 we still await a validated theory of solar dynamics that was lacking in 1902?
    Basically, yes. Now, this does not mean we have not made progress. It means that we have good several ideas, but don’t know which is the right one.
    What are the 2010 front runner theories?
    There are theories on different levels. We have little doubt that a magnetic dynamo is operating, that is: circulation of solar plasma across existing magnetic fields left over from the previous cycle amplifies that field by winding it up. The amplified field makes it to the surface where solar activity results. The field disperses and sinks back into the Sun for another round of winding, and the cycle continues.
    Within that broad framework [which was not known in 1902] we need to know more about the circulation patterns and speeds. This is where the great uncertainty is. SDO will help getting a better picture. Another problem is the location of the dynamo: shallow or deep. We don’t know that yet. Perhaps there is more than one, so both shallow and deep dynamos may be operating at the same time. And finally, the evolution of the magnetic field at the surface is not well known, because the magnetic ‘elements’ are so small that they are just below observational resolution. This will also improve in the near future with both space and ground based telescopes. So, there is hope that we can figure out what we are missing. Failed models are useful to show us avenues that were not fruitful.
    vukcevic (05:39:47) :
    I suggest take a look at the PF equation numbers (2×11.862 and 19.859) in the formula
    Please, your peddling is not useful, nor does it represent the actual state of affairs. We have been down that road before, so no need to rehash this.
    KimW (03:37:25) :
    (…) It seems that the more we know, it shows us how little we know.
    Not quite correct. The more we know, the more questions we can ask. Questions that could not even have been conceived without our increase in knowledge.
    Steve Goddard (04:52:54) :
    This isn’t an issue of “theory” or “changing his mind”, rather it is an indication of a much more serious fundamental data collection problem
    First, he was referring to speeds at two different levels, lower and upper. Second, the circulation is difficult to measure [especially at depth], so it is not a data ‘collection’ problem, it is just hard to do. Motions on the Sun are in the km per second level: 2000 m/s from rotation and 500-1000 m/s from random convection, so to find a signal at the 1-10 m/s level is just hard.

  87. the_Butcher (06:09:07) :
    I’ve read that the sun is constantly growing until it gets red and then shrinking before dying.
    How come the earth is moving away?

    ‘Growing’ has to be considered in the right meaning. The Sun is losing mass [that is way the Earth is moving away, but only centimeters per year. At the same time the Sun’s fuel [Hydrogen] is being consumed in the core which means that the thermal pressure needed to hold up the outer layers goes down [less fuel, less energy production, less pressure]. The result is that the core shrinks. Compression heats the core so that the core is now hotter as needed to hold up the Sun. The expands the outer layers and the Sun grows in size [even though it shrinks in mass].
    BTW, the internal solar furnace is actually very gentle. The energy production is very small per unit of mass. It takes a million tons of Sun to produce as much energy to run a hair dryer.

  88. Re: JMANON (Mar 13 05:49),
    The problem is that eco engineers can come up with lots of ways to insulate us from solar energy but none to replace it.
    It would be a shame if they succeeded in shutting us off from the sun just when we are in a cooling spell because taking the particles out of thee atmosphere or removing the sun shade will only restore access to whatever level of solar heating is available, it can do nothing to replace the lost income while thee barriers were up.
    It doesn’t help that the AGW campaign has been about persuading us that warm in bad and cold is good. It will be too late to complain about that when we are all blocks of ice.

    Wrong. Smart geo engineering could be reversible.
    In any case, the only true climate prophecy is that “an ice age is coming” maybe in 100 years, maybe in 1000 but the clockwork of the Vostock data shows that it will come. So, if humans are not blown up in a nuclear catastrophe, or an asteroid does not hit earth, they should be planning for an ice age.
    Space shades that would cover enough from the sun’s rays to cool the earth could be reversed as mirrors to focus a second mirrored sun on the earth and increase the insolation, if the ice age comes, if they are judiciously designed .
    If a real ice age develops I have been wondering whether covering the moon with aluminum foil might not do the trick, but have not done the calculations.
    That means we have to support option 2 and that means we have to pretend that AGW is real and the only cause of warming and we have to pretend that carbons trading is effective and all we need to do.
    You are assuming that cap and trade and all that nonsense are harmless. They are not. Returning to the energy consumption of the 1900s for the west will return us to the poverty and hardship of those times. The worst will happen in the third world where people will die of starvation as they already have with the ethanol fiasco that raised the price of corn and reduced people in Haiti to eating mud pies.
    The mass media insulate the western world from the terrible conditions in the third world and make it a video game, “so what if 1 billion people starve to death”.
    Eugenics at its worst.

  89. George Varros (00:16:27) :
    “Dr. Tony Phillips isn’t a forecaster, he is the production editor of SpaceWeather.com I don’t think he embellishes anything but does work with the person behind the story somewhat, to help convey the meaning to the general public. Dr. Phillips is only the messenger…”
    If you look at the bottom of everyone of those sensational and inaccurate NASA press releases I highlighted above you’ll see “Author: Dr. Tony Phillips”:
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm
    As such, Dr. Tony Phillips would be responsible for many of those sensational headlines, the false air of certainty, the use of misleading soundbites, “embellishments” and spinning the facts into awfully broad conclusions that were obviously not justified based on the underling facts. Dr. Tony Phillips does not appear to be a messenger, but rather a chief architect of NASA’s sensational and inaccurate solar press releases.

  90. This reminds me of a book, science fiction, of course. AGW reports could fall into that category, although poorly written ones. Anyway, Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Micheal Flynn. The greens take power, through fear mongering, the world cools dramatically, the only “warm” places have nuclear power stations. The theme throughout “Throw another log on the fire”. Great story.

  91. Since no one else seems to have a better explanation. . .
    The extended solar minimum is a clear sign that Sun Gods are angry at Climate Change Scientists for having ignored them and are demanding sacrifices.
    Suggestions?

  92. ““Fast” in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second (20 to 30 miles per hour). A good bicyclist could easily keep up.”
    Yeah, but he’d need one hell of a big waterbottle.

  93. The majority of the longer-lasting sunspots are the ones nearest the equator, and that line is advancing rather quickly. Anything forming poleward of those lines in either hemisphere is weak, doesn’t last long or blinks in and out (swept away in the current).
    It’s also showing a behavior pattern that favors one hemisphere over another. That’s the really strange part.

  94. >>>A space deployed sun shade is the most obvious
    >>>beginning and that will be phenomenally expensive.
    People keep mentioning orbital Sun-shades, but as far as I am aware, a large Sun-shade for the Earth will rapidy become the largest sailingship ever devised, and disappear off to Saturn at a rapid rate of knots. Arthur C Clarke wrote a book about a clipper sailing race around the solar system.
    >>I’ve read that the sun is constantly growing until it gets
    >>red and then shrinking before dying. How come the
    >>earth is moving away?
    Its in a period of stasis.
    .

  95. My Organic Chemistry instructor told us to document everything in our lab books because is science, failures are often more important than successes. Knowing what you don’t know is the first step in the journey to knowledge.

  96. >>>SO2 emissions are good example. … They don’t know if
    >>>they’ve gone down up or stayed the same. i.e. other
    >>>countries have increased their emission to filled he void.
    Yup – that’s liberal economics and science for you. You cannot have all those filthy factories in the West, polluting the environment, so we shall:
    a. close down all Western factories
    b. make everyone unemployed
    c. backrupt Western nations
    d. tranfer the technology and machinery to China
    e. give all our money to China, to buy the goods we used to make
    f. allow China to output 10x as much SO2 as the West ever did
    g. rejoice that we have ‘reduced’ SO2 emissions
    h. as an encore, go on to prove that black is white
    i. sit back and wait for the civil unrest that will inevitably follow
    .

  97. From the perspective of the Sun or Earth climate, we humans have only been observing their method of operation for a tiny amount of time it takes for the full spectrum of operational conditions to be manifest. We have problems with absolute measurement of many parameters now and even less accurate proxy data. Both systems display the signs of deterministic chaos, which makes drawing firm conclusion from our limited observations difficult.
    Limited progress has been made, but we should not be too harsh with scientists for not yet finishing the job and developing the ability to predict distant future events.
    There are no quick solutions to these sorts of hard problem and it will take much time before wisdom is achieved.

  98. Leif Svalgaard (21:45:36) :
    “It is honorable to learn and to change your mind when evidence does not support your ideas. David Hathaway is doing this right [there is no better believer than a reformed sinner 🙂 ].”
    I must say I was very impressed with David Hathaway’s interview/mea culpa that used to be found for free here:
    http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1635&category=Science
    until it was buried behind a subscription barrier in the last few weeks.
    In the Earthfiles interview Hathaway stated that
    “I am writing a paper – it’s on my computer as we speak (laughs) – basically saying that I made a big mistake – myself and Bob Wilson – when we wrote a paper in 2006, suggesting Solar Cycle 24 was going to be a huge cycle based on conditions at that time.”
    “But there also were people back at that time saying otherwise. A group of colleagues led by Leif Svalgaard, Ph.D., were looking at the sun’s polar fields and saying even at that point, the sun’s polar fields were significantly weaker than they had been before and those scientists back then predicted it was going to be a small cycle.”
    “IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE SUN IS BOTH PECULIAR AND UNPREDICTABLE?”
    “Yeah, I’d buy that! (laughs) Most definitely!”
    Unfortunately for David Hathaway, the NASA solar press release episode provides a great case study on how scientists and NASA have spun speculation into sweeping erroneous proclamations. It is this type of behavior that is also used to propagate the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative, thus I have to occasionally roll out the NASA sensational solar press release episode to make a point. From what I understand from Leif, David Hathaway is a good scientist, he just got wrapped up with the wrong sort…

  99. wayne (06:36:43) :
    is this difference driven solely by the overall sun-size magnetic field? Seems it must, I can’t think of anything else to break the symmetry.
    The circulations in the two solar hemispheres are rather independent of each other and such asymmetry is very common. Here is a view of the last five cycles: http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html
    I’ve noticed before how the southern pole usually has a coronal hole but not the north
    Both poles have a coronal hole, but the Sun’s axis is tilted a bit [7.16 degrees], so that we can see the South pole best in March [like now] and the North pole best in September. So if you look in September, the North pole coronal hole will be more prominent:
    Just The Facts (07:30:55) :
    NASA’s sensational and inaccurate solar press releases.
    Whomever it is [and NASA is also guilty], we often see these overhyped press releases [and I tell everybody every time that this is just the usual NASA PR-hype], so we just activate the hype filter and ignore the ‘unprecedented’, ‘never seen before’, ‘scientists are stumped’, ‘breakthrough’, etc filler-phrases.
    Sharon (07:34:52) :
    demanding sacrifices.
    Suggestions?

    You a virgin by any chance to qualify? 🙂

  100. Steve Goddard (22:57:55) :
    Still waiting for an explanation. How can you get theory right when you can’t even measure within an order of magnitude?
    Please. How about most of the physics of the late 19th and early 20th century? They had great theory (and a lot of duds!).
    Theory is called that, well, because its a theory. Measurement helps you refine theories that may be a bit hairy. Come on Steve… I generally like your comments, but sometimes you come up with some doozy dumb ones….

  101. rbateman @ 7:47:13
    I learned from Leif several years ago that the sunspots during the Dalton Minimum were sparse, large and predominately southern hemispheric.
    ======================

  102. wayne (05:38:44) :
    KimW (03:37:25) :
    “(…) It seems that the more we know, it shows us how little we know.”
    Now there is a truly intelligent statement!

    Little things lead to bigger things and bigger things to more.
    For all our prying and examination, only one thing can be for sure.
    Little things lead to bigger things and bigger things to more.

  103. Leif Svalgaard (06:52:10) :
    “We have been down that road before, …….”
    Dr. Hathaway says (direct quote):
    “We don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
    and he is probably paid fortune by NASA.
    My answer (with no pay) is exactly the same:
    “I don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work.”
    And you can check the quote. As they say: ”what is good for the goose is good for the gander”
    As you can see from here http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm it works, and it is an excellent agreement with research done by:
    Hulburt Center for Space Research (by Wang , Lean and Sheeley)
    and Max-Planck Institute ( Solanki et al)
    Two relevant papers are:
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-4357/577/1/L53/16614.text.html
    and
    http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
    As I said elsewhere, it appears that:
    There is more than one way to crack a coconut (…to skin a cat, would be calling for cruelty).
    or there is more than one way to the get same result for the mystery of solar cycles.

  104. Steve Goddard (04:52:54) :
    Leif,
    The silence is deafening:
    2006
    “The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl…In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”
    2010
    “The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has been running at record-high speeds for the past five years…The Great Conveyor Belt is one of the biggest things in the whole solar system and by human standards it moves with massive slowness. “Fast” in this context means 10 to 15 meters per second ”
    His graph shows the peak in 2006, right when the he previously claimed the record minimum. This isn’t an issue of “theory” or “changing his mind”, rather it is an indication of a much more serious fundamental data collection problem.
    ~
    Could we add to that the anomalous, somewhat anemic, solar southern hemisphere from cycle 23 max thru now and continues to be slowwwer.
    Did we clip an interstellar cloudlette in the southern heliosphere and clog up the intake/output, some sort of heated up back pressure or what? Hit a cloud slow down your system and watch for the consequences to your system. Make sure it’s a dustier, dirtier, faster cloud you clip. You’d see a trickle down effect throughout the entire system starting in the outer bubble. What does low level sectional descreening look like in it’s infancy?
    Did that article state it was a surface slowing, not an undercurrent? Will have to read it again.
    We’ll sign this,
    Group W bench
    We could be guilty of litterin’ and causing a disturbance.

  105. I’m pleased to see that several commenters remember Hatchway’s trail of solar pronouncements as do I (“the conveyor has slowed; the conveyor has speeded up; the sun is behaving most abnormally; there is nothing unusual about the sun’s current behavior”). Such an incoherent record, presented in each case with such glib confidence, would in most arenas of human endeavor lead to suspicions of mental instability. Does Mr. Hathaway by any chance commune with the “saucer people”?

  106. The problem with science is that it thinks the sun and planet recharges itself somehow and the rotational show down is caused by other factors.
    The sun and planets are already infused with rotational energy and as the mass is used, it has to slow.
    The mixture of gases and mass makes for a very interesting adjustment of rotation forcing mass to the outer perimenter and leaving gases to the inner perimeter.
    This then is totally contrary to our theory on what the core of our planet is made of.
    The suns core is super compressed gases so why is our planets core any different?
    We have density and atmospheric pressure that gives us gravity but under the surface is a whole different set of rules.

  107. Ref – KimW (03:37:25) :
    “Perhaps the Sun is a barely perceptible variable star on a scale of centuries ?.”
    _______________________
    Go on.. I’m listening..
    You’re not alone in your wundering;-)

  108. It would probably be for the better if scientist were quiet for a while now — And concentrate on science.
    What we know, you could write a book. What we don’t know, you could fill a really really large library.

  109. Here it is, upper belt faster than lower belt where they supposedly can track speed by sunspot. How are we tracking lower belt speed in the southern solar hemisphere then?
    ~~
    The second surprise has to do with the bottom of the Conveyor Belt.
    SOHO can only clock the motions of the visible top layer. The bottom is hidden by ~200,000 kilometers of overlying plasma. Nevertheless, an estimate of its speed can be made by tracking sunspots.
    “Sunspots are supposedly rooted to the bottom of the belt,” says Hathaway. “So the motion of sunspots tells us how fast the belt is moving down there.”
    He’s done that—plotted sunspot speeds vs. time since 1996—and the results don’t make sense. “While the top of the conveyor belt has been moving at record-high speed, the bottom seems to be moving at record-low speed. Another contradiction.”
    Could it be that sunspots are not rooted to the bottom of the Conveyor Belt, after all? “That’s one possibility” he notes. “Sunspots could be moving because of dynamo waves or some other phenomenon not directly linked to the belt.”
    What researchers really need is a good look deep inside the sun. NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, launched in February 2010, will provide that when its instruments come online later this year. SDO is able to map the sun’s interior using a technique called helioseismology. SOHO can do the same thing, but not well enough to trace the Great Conveyor Belt all the way around. SDO’s advanced sensors might reveal the complete circuit.
    And then…? “It could be the missing piece we need to forecast the whole solar cycle,” says Hathaway.
    ~~

  110. The wonderful thing about all this is: What ever happens, it is not the fault of mankind and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.
    I strongly suspect that this concept is closely related to the climate on Earth. Try as hard as we can, we are not in control of the climate and we are not going to have much of an effect on whether or not the Earth cools down or heats up.
    Thank you Anthony for the work you do.

  111. Very interesting research. Meanwhile, isn’t it interesting that despite one of the deepest solar minimums in a century that we’ve just passed through, that we are still seeing such high global temps? To what do the AGW skeptics attribute this. Currently March 2010 tropospheric temps are spiking way above 20 year records:
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    Warmth at all levels of the troposphere, especially check out 14,000 ft. and click on the record high button and see how far above March tropo temps are.
    Now, I know, AGW skeptics will say this is all either El Nino, or even (as on misquided and underinformed poster said) because it shows the earth is actually cooling. Sorry, both are insufficient.
    Warming of the troposphere is exactly the main effect predicted by AGW models, with numerous side effects, such as melting of sea ice, warming of ocean, melting of glaciers, rising of oceans, etc. But specifically, the warming of the troposphere is the key to them all because that is wear the GH gases are rising, and where they trap the heat. Now yes, I fully realize that GH gases don’t actually “trap” the heat, but rather, act through the process of absorption and re-radiation of heat, but the net effect is to “trap” heat, by radiating some of the heat back to the surface and to other molecules of GH gases in the troposphere. Of course some of the heat is radiated back into space, and thank god it is, or we’d be cooked in a few days.
    Also, despite the recent extreme solar minimum, we haven’t seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004, probably won’t this winter, and have actually seen several negative antarctic sea ice anomalies in the past few years. How do AGW skeptics explain this? We’ve got record warmth in the troposphere and the arctic sea ice still did not recover to it’s seasonal norm this winter– all despite the deep solar minimum. Could these solar cycle play less of a role in the climate than the increased antropogenic GH gases, as AGW theorists are saying?

  112. vukcevic (08:24:20) :
    My answer (with no pay) is exactly the same:
    “I don’t know why this works. The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work.”

    The world is full of people who claim things they don’t understand works even when they don’t.
    And Hathaway’s quote is as wrong as can be. He doesn’t know how his geomagnetic ‘peak’ correlation works, and clearly it didn’t either, to wit the failure of his old prediction.

  113. kim (08:17:16) :
    I learned from Leif several years ago that the sunspots during the Dalton Minimum were sparse, large and predominately southern hemispheric.
    Maunder, not Dalton.

  114. It wouldn’t surprising to find out that the magnetic belts could as deep as or near the core of the sun. Gravitation alone could not explain how a star can hold on to its outer core when becoming a red giant and then collapsing quickly and explosively when it goes supernova.

  115. Mark.R (22:43:50) :
    “the sun and Earth are gradually moving apart. It’s not much – just 15 cm per year”
    This is the best news ever. No need to go to colonise Mars. As Sun looses its mass (and its gravity decreases, its outer layers are going to expand, but the Earth will move further away, so we’ll get good TSI. This will be an exponential process (Newton F=g *m1*m2/r^2). This means even in its ‘red Giant’ state the Sun ain’t going to turn the beautiful Gaia into French fries. (God did not do all that work for nothing!)
    Anthony this news is worth of a closer scientific scrutiny.

  116. @ Anna V,
    Thank you for your comments.
    You have said:
    “Wrong. Smart geo engineering could be reversible.”
    I can see that in the case of “sun shades” it is true that they can dismantle the system if they want to.
    It is more difficcult to extract SOX and particulates frrom the atmosphere. About all you can do is wait for them to settle out on their own. Of course, if you’ve been following Prof Curtzen’s original suggestion of using rockets and artillery to project sulphur into the atmosphere then you can just stop doing it. If, howevere, some of the wilder schemes have been adopted such as creating artificial volcanoes, is it that easy to stop the volcano? Has anyone ever had any success stopping a volcano?
    But however “reversible” the schemes are, what you can do is stop heat reaching the erth but once you remove the screens all you do is expose the earth to the current level of solar energy. You cannot make up for the energy not recived while the screenss were in place.
    This means that essentially eco-engineering schemes are about cutting us off from excess received energy but if we need to warm up quickly there is nothing they can do. So if we have lost 50% of the suns energy for a year, our energy budget is forever missing 50% of that years energy.
    So the engineering may be reversible, in some cases, but the effects are not, we would have to live with the consequences. As I say, if they do all this solar energy blocking at a time when we are actually cooling, then we could be in real trouble because this would make everything worse with no escape mechanism. This is one of the reasosn why the “preccautionary principal” cannot be allowed to be invoked, there is no recovery mode.
    Cap and trade and the other AGW mechanisms will do harm to people and society. Yes. They will not harm the environment. While some of us will suffer terribly from the effects, as you suggest, ultimately it is a survivable situation for people. We may emerge with a lot fewer people, (potentially a lot fewre politicians and climate scientists with a political agenda) and with a much altered global economy and a society we may not recognise, but humanity can survive that and, one hopes, as the true impact begins to become apparent we can scale back on the causes.
    Ideally we would recognise the folly of the AGW case and the economic disater being constructed in its name and stop it all now but I suspect that it is easier said than done. I also, sadly, suspect that it may take a great many millions of deaths before anyone reacts to shut down this scam. Millions of people dying is a common event due to corrupt political regimes, false science and the like. The rational that says we ought to spend our money combatting aids, poverty and disseases, as suggested by Lomberg, because we get more benefits from our money, doesn’t seem to sway politicans overly much. We can look at the millions that died as a result of the banning of DDT and ask “who takes the blame?” Rachel Carson? Politicians? us? but the more important question is why did it take so long to do anything about it?
    I don’t know thhe answers. All I surmise is that the same will happen with the manufactured problems of AGW. It will take many millions of deaths before we can get something sensible done. It may end in bloodshed. It may be that we will have to start holding people to account for the misinformation that causes so much suffering. It didn’t happen with Lysenko. It isn’t likely to happen with Al Gore, Phil Jones, Michael Mann or any of the grey men behind the AGW scam. One wonders how some of them sleep at night. As you suggest, there are real actual deaths attributable to the actions that have resulted from the AGW scam.
    There is real environmental damage (in the sense that rainforreest is being destroyed to produce palm oil or sugar cane, in the sens ethat some species will become extinct as a result such as the orang utang or the sumatran rhinoserous, or that the landscape will become smothered in unsightly wind turbines). So far the IPCC has been quick to point out the increased deaths in summer but hide the corressponding deaths in winterr from cold. That makes these people complicit in a false scheme that will cause actual deaths.
    That is the real crime. Not the money or that we won’t have such an easy time of it.
    You are right, eugenics at its worst. One wonders if this isn’t an unstated objective of some of those who are exploiting the AGW scam.

  117. Humanity has been studying the sun for thousands of years but there’s still a lot about it that our most learned solar scientists have yet to learn.
    It’s nice when solar scientists acknowledge this. Thanks Leif.

  118. @ Anna V
    Sorry, Anna, i missed your point about the use of the solar screens as a means to collect and focus solar energy onto the earth.
    Good point.
    I suspect we are now getting into some really expensive engineering though. If the idea is feasible and practicable to begin with I’m sure the added cost will be welcomed by those doing the engineering. I’m not sure how they’d go about it in the first place. I imagine any significant size screen woul be quickly subjected to the effects of the solar wind. It will eb a job just to get it up and deployed and keep it there without then trying to be able to move it from one part of the earths orbit (between the earth and the sun) to another (behind the earth to collect and reflect energy back to the earth).
    I imagine the original concept is for some kind of foil deployed between us and the sun. That will be most vulnerable to the solar wind and will soon be displaced. I guess the option would be not to try and reposition it but simply to allow it to disintegrate and deploy a new screen as and when and where needed.
    I suspect the lower cost option would be artificial volcanoes. I’m sure the quick fix mentality would love that. Engineering and deploying sun shades will be a lomng term effort. A few well placed nuclear deevices to initiate a couple of volcanoes will be attractive to some.

  119. Vuk etc (09:11:20) :
    Anthony this news is worth of a closer scientific scrutiny.
    Nonsense, in a billion years the distance will change 1/1000 of its current value. And by that time, the Earth is devoid of higher life anyway, because there will not be enough CO2 left to sustain plant growth.

  120. >>R. Gates (08:55:13) :
    >> we’ve just passed through, that we are still seeing such
    >>high global temps?
    >>To what do the AGW skeptics attribute this. Currently
    >>March 2010 tropospheric temps are spiking way above
    >>20 year records:
    You do jest, surely. One of the coldest N. Hemisphere winters in 30 years, and you are still harping on about warming??
    .

  121. To expand a bit on Ninderthana’s and Ralph’s explanation, besides the density issue, if the lower belt is 200,000km below the Sun’s surface, per the article, simple geometry makes clear that the lower belt has a considerably shorter distance to travel before reaching the upwelling zone, no? So, it darn well has to be slower.
    And a nitpicking observation: I think it is unhelpful to refer to the Sun’s axial tilt when what is being described is the tilt of the Earth’s orbital plane. L

  122. Ray (09:07:51) :
    It wouldn’t surprising to find out that the magnetic belts could as deep as or near the core of the sun. Gravitation alone could not explain how a star can hold on to its outer core when becoming a red giant and then collapsing quickly and explosively when it goes supernova.
    Ray it’s called rotation. How does our atmosphere stay in place. The same.

  123. Ralph,
    Surely I don’t jest. The N. Hemisphere winter was only the coldest in 30 years in SOME areas…Greenland and part of N. Canada for example, saw record warmth. The record cold in other areas is directly attributed to the negative AO index, which pushed colder air further south, while warming parts of the arctic. For example, if it had been extremely cold over the whole north, we probably would have seen the arctic sea ice recover to its normal level this winter, but it has not. Why? Because parts of the arctic were warmer than normal! AGW is a global phenomenon, and as such, no one cares if you’ve got extra frost on your pumpkin this winter in Pumpkin Patch, AK. Globally, the last few months have been among the warmest on instrument record, and this is what AGW models speak to…not local and short-lived abberations. We are looking at what the long term trends are. The Met Office has predicted that 2010 will likely be the warmest on instrument record, and I fully concure. Considering we’ve just passed through this 100 year deep solar minimum, how could we be facing a record warm year? Answer: Because the sun plays less of a role in the climate than the buildup of anthropogenic GH gases…this is the heart of the AGW hypothesis, and so far, despite the long and deep solar minimum, the hypothesis holds up…

  124. R. Gates (08:55:13) :
    “Meanwhile, isn’t it interesting that despite one of the deepest solar minimums in a century that we’ve just passed through, that we are still seeing such high global temps? To what do the AGW skeptics attribute this. Currently March 2010 tropospheric temps are spiking way above 20 year records:”
    There seems to be reasonable evidence of a significant ocean component based on the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation;
    http://icecap.us/docs/change/ocean_cycle_forecasts.pdf
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_egec.htm
    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm
    And there also may be a significant volcanic component based historical observation:
    http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991vci..nasa…..R
    If you look all of the potential variables involved in Earth’s climate system;
    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/whatfactors.pdf
    you’ll see that it is folly to assign primary driver status to any variable when we have a rudimentary understanding of such an astoundingly complex system.

  125. Leif Svalgaard (10:01:07) :
    Can you elaborate on the loss of C02 (or carbon in particular)?
    Loss to space and/or geologic sequestration can accomplish that.

  126. anna v (07:27:55) :
    You are assuming that cap and trade and all that nonsense are harmless. They are not. Returning to the energy consumption of the 1900s for the west will return us to the poverty and hardship of those times. The worst will happen in the third world where people will die of starvation as they already have with the ethanol fiasco that raised the price of corn and reduced people in Haiti to eating mud pies.
    The mass media insulate the western world from the terrible conditions in the third world and make it a video game, “so what if 1 billion people starve to death”.
    Eugenics at its worst.
    ————-
    Anna,
      Well said.  So the choices are:
    1. Embrace AGW and kill off one billion people now
    2. Ignore AGW and suffer/benefit from the consequences in the future
    And self identified “intellectuals” embrace AGW?  I guess they figure they won’t be part of the billion people who die.
    Mike Ramsey

  127. I see good science, good data (facts) and poor theory. Looks to me like the conveyor belt is busted and needs to be pitched into the trash bin.

  128. It is more than a proposition that the galactic environment that the sun encounters changes its mechanisms of energy action. As its core becomes protonically heavier because the influx of cosmic rays increases, the rate of flow of the top layers should be expected to speed up as its magnetic potential becomes more eclipsed by the ionically differentiated magnetic strength of the Interstellar cloud (as part of the star renewal process) which is causing the bottom layers of the conveyor belt (convective currents) to slow.
    These changes interact with earth’s magnetosphere by allowing to densify because of the declining impact of the solar wind. Subsequently, earth’s outgoing radiation budget increases and with elemental lags attached the heat budget of all atmospheric layers change in the only possible abruptly forced turns.

  129. Leif Svalgaard (10:01:07) :
    “And by that time, the Earth is devoid of higher life anyway, because there will not be enough CO2 left to sustain plant growth.”
    I doubt it. There are trillions and trillions tons of CaCO3 in the Montenegrian rocks alone. H, He, O an C are the most common elements of the Universe. There is no end to the human ingenuity, when pushed to the wall, they may find way to extract carbon, carry it in a small container mixed with some H2O and few minerals, feeding green bio-active personalised clothing, synthesizing carbon hydrates, directly plugged into the blood stream. And hey presto no need for plants.

  130. Ref – Leif Svalgaard (09:04:02) :
    kim (08:17:16) :
    “I learned from Leif several years ago that the sunspots during the Dalton Minimum were sparse, large and predominately southern hemispheric.”
    Maunder, not Dalton.
    _____________________
    Were the sunspots during the Dalton so different?

  131. Could the magnetic fields be acting like a giant transformer? With the fields in the top portion inducing a countering Lenz field in the lower portion?
    I believe the Wiffle Ball effect in the Polywell Fusion Reactor experiments are based on such induction. At least in theory.

  132. Leif Svalgaard (10:01:07) :
    Vuk etc (09:11:20) :
    Anthony this news is worth of a closer scientific scrutiny.
    Nonsense, in a billion years the distance will change 1/1000 of its current value. And by that time, the Earth is devoid of higher life anyway, because there will not be enough CO2 left to sustain plant growth.
    ———
    Autotrophs (which include Plants) everywhere are now thanking us for postponing their (and thus our own) extinction.
    Mike Ramsey

  133. Leif @ 9:04:02
    Thanks for the correction. Does anyone have any idea why the sunspots during the Maunder Minimum were predominately southern hemispheric?
    ===============

  134. Re: Just The Facts (10:18:02):
    Or, how about the much simpler fact that we are seeing the highest CO2 levels in centuries?
    Yes, all these things play a role in the climate, but the role GH gases play in the troposphere is really not all that complicated, nor poorly understood, and is simpler. The way GH gases “trap” radiation, the warming effect on the troposphere as well as the oceans, land, and the subsequent cooling effect on the stratosphere, is not all that complicated. Occam’s razor would favor the simpler AGW hypothesis…

  135. a little carelessness (apologies for the redo)
    It is more than a proposition that the galactic environment that the sun encounters changes its mechanisms of energy action. The sun’s core becomes protonically heavier as part of the process causing the bottom layers of its conveyor belt (convective currents) to slow. This process involves how the sun’s ability to fight off the influx of cosmic rays is overcome. In this fight the rate of flow of the top layers of the sun’s conveyor belt should be expected to speed up as their magnetic potential become more eclipsed by the ionically differentiated magnetic strength of the Interstellar cloud (as part of the star renewal process).
    These changes interact with earth’s magnetosphere by allowing it to densify because of the declining impact of the solar wind. Subsequently, earth’s outgoing radiation budget increases and with elemental lags attached the heat budget of all atmospheric layers changes in the only possible abruptly forced turns.

  136. L (10:13:52) :
    has a considerably shorter distance to travel before reaching the upwelling zone, no?
    The real factor is the density, the distance doesn’t matter much [you also have to add getting down there and back up]
    And a nitpicking observation: I think it is unhelpful to refer to the Sun’s axial tilt when what is being described is the tilt of the Earth’s orbital plane.
    It depends on from where you look. From a physical standpoint it is the Sun’s axis that is tilted with respect to the ‘invariant plane’ of the planets as a whole.
    rbateman (10:21:22) :
    Can you elaborate on the loss of C02 (or carbon in particular)?
    Loss to space and/or geologic sequestration can accomplish that.

    As the Sun heats up [10% per billion year], erosion increases [more evaporation, more rain, and general increase of chemical processes with temperature – about a doubling per 10C increase] so geological sequestration increases. Once you get below some 150 ppm plants starve.
    andy adkins (10:30:51) :
    With out going into details, your idea is not how things work.
    Vuk etc (10:33:26) :
    And hey presto no need for plants.
    The rest of the biosphere needs plants. And the H2O will also disappear perhaps another billion years thereafter.
    Pascvaks (10:35:27) :
    Were the sunspots during the Dalton so different?
    probably not, but the Sun is messy so don’t expect things to stay constant and nice.

  137. If conveyor belt increses its velocity it means frequency increases and wave length (diameter) decreases.

  138. DoctorJJ (02:45:55) :
    I’m kinda lost here. I read that entire article twice and never saw the word “robust”. I’m not sure what to make of this. Without something being robust, I don’t really know what to do.
    LOL!

  139. J.Hansford (02:48:30) :
    I got no qualms with Hathaway being wrong on previous occasions….. Science is about being wrong, usually more times than you are right….
    Dang! Then AGW must be good science, really good!!
    Here I been thinking it’s all politics and environmentalism. What was I thinking!
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    But seriously maybe he could learn this from Einstein and be more careful before asserting things:
    “If A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut.”

  140. The Solar stuff is definately sexy! I imagine science departments to be organized that the Solar guys get the offices with the big windows over looking the quadrant where all the girls hang out and the weather guys are down the hall, left, then right, next to the maintenance room. AGW is their revenge!!
    Anyway, don’t know anything about this so…… the LHC reveals the Higgs and confirms Superstring which reveals that the mechanism underlying entanglement to be little understood. As entanglement occurs over unknown distances; entangled particles seperated a birth by supernovae reconstitute in seperate bodies/planets and remain entangled and pull on each other. Hence the earthquakes when the sun is quiet.
    Just kidding!

  141. Leif and I had an interesting discussion over at a thread called ‘social networking’ about solar issues. The sun is definately fun.

  142. Mike Ramsey (10:25:40) :
    anna v (07:27:55) :
    Ross McKitrick on the development of poor countries and coal:

  143. a little carelessness (apologies for the redo. Also html link changed )
    It is more than a proposition that the galactic environment that the sun encounters changes its mechanisms of energy action. The sun’s core becomes protonically heavier as part of the process causing the bottom layers of its conveyor belt (convective currents) to slow. This process involves how the sun’s ability to fight off the influx of cosmic rays is overcome. In this fight the rate of flow of the top layers of the sun’s conveyor belt should be expected to speed up as their magnetic potential become more eclipsed by the ionically differentiated magnetic strength of the Interstellar cloud (as part of the star renewal process).
    These changes interact with earth’s magnetosphere by allowing it to densify because of the declining impact of the solar wind. Subsequently, earth’s outgoing radiation budget increases and with elemental lags attached the heat budget of all atmospheric layers changes in the only possible abruptly forced turns.

  144. Mike Ramsey (10:25:40) :
    anna v (07:27:55) :
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    John Christy on the morals of energy use for development:

  145. KimW (03:37:25) :
    I vividly recall as a second year geology student, ‘Lo, all those years ago’, – 42 actually, – writing as part of a response to a question on a solar cause for the Pleistocene Ice Ages, “The Sun’s energy output is relatively constant and not variable enough to cause or end an Ice Age. Solar physics are well understood.”
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    I feel your pain! Though it’s in a different topic.
    I find it so fascinating that Nir Shaviv has found that the spiral arms of the galaxy have an important role in climate on earth over the ages.
    He’s in this 5 part series in YouTube on the sun and cosmic rays:

  146. Re: JMANON (Mar 13 09:32),
    The advantage in space is that materials can be very thin and the solar energy can be used with ion ejection to keep the orbit stable despite the solar wind on the sail like shades. The same method could be used to move them to a desired orbit if used as mirrors. I do not know how long the sail material would last, but it could be replaced the way astronauts do repairs to their ships now.
    If the danger of overheating were real then the cheapest and safest solution are the self propelled ships that would seed with salt to increase albedo. They can be stopped on a penny and the salt will fall down with the first rains.
    I do believe though that there should be geo engineering studies for the case of an ice age coming. A volcano explosion could trigger it at any time.

  147. I’m a bit confused. If I look at the the graph of conveyor velocity, the 2006 values are substantially higher than those of, say, 2001. How could Hathaway have said in 2006 that the conveyor is crawling so slowly, like never before?

  148. Amino Acids in Meteorites (11:09:12) :
    But seriously maybe he could learn this from Einstein and be more careful before asserting things
    It is only by asserting things [and making it so clear in your mind that you can assert something] that you find out if it is right or wrong. The problem here is NASA’s incessant hype on this. Hathaway is an enthusiastic scientist and is thus a willing ‘victim’. He loves to talk about his thoughts and work [as many of us do].

  149. OT….as I read and contribute to these comments, I’m really awe-struck by the depth of analysis, seriousness of discussion and attention to detail! Solar physics, atmospheric chemistry, evolutionary biology….
    The climate change crowd seem to think we are ignorant, Neanderthal “deniers” without science…..quite honestly, I see MUCH more honest peer review going on these comment threads than in the published climatology literature!
    Well done, everyone!

  150. I question a couple of minor items in the figures that are part of this story.
    The first figure, an artist’s concept representing the Sun, its core, and the “Conveyor Belt”, shows a partial cross-section with two somewhat elliptically-shaped diagrams that I presume represent the circulating meridional flow. The excerpt from Hathaway’s paper states “The average flow is poleward at all latitudes up to 75 degrees, which suggests that it extends to the poles.” I believe this motion, visible on the Sun’s surface, starts at the equator and proceeds toward each pole, one traveling towards the Sun’s north pole, the other toward the south pole, where it dives down deeply and proceeds at such low levels in the reverse direction until regaining the vicinity of the equator, where it rises and continues toward the poles once again on the surface.
    The upper ellipse in the artist’s concept shows an arrowhead that correctly indicates the direction of flow, but the arrowhead on the lower figure appears to be incorrect, as this would imply a flow on the surface FROM the Sun’s south pole TOWARD the equator. And what function is intended for the wobbly vertical line, with an arrow indicating a flow of some sort from near the north pole and ending near the south pole? If it is intended to indicate direction of flow on the Sun’s surface, the line should be broken in two at the equator, with an arrow on one half pointing toward the north pole, the other toward the south pole.
    Also, the second figure, whose verticle scale is identified as “Velocity Amplitude” includes a red curve identified as “Sunspot Number 20”. I believe the intent is to represent sunspot numbers for Cycle 23 between 1995 and near the end of 1999, illustrating the apparently odd relationship of sunspot number with sunspot velocity. There appears to be either a wild point or a peculiar discontinuity showing a 50% drop in velocity at the 2008 tick mark.

  151. kim (10:43:04) :
    Leif @ 9:04:02
    Thanks for the correction. Does anyone have any idea why the sunspots during the Maunder Minimum were predominately southern hemispheric?
    ===============
    ~
    Kim, you go girl!
    Yes indeed, that’s my kind of question.
    Group W thinks at the time of Maunder we were clipped by a passing interstellar cloudlette that predominately hung above the heliosphere as it passed. Just messy enough to mess up the grids of magnetic field reconnections that occur between the ISMF and IMF. (you know fill em full of dust, and cool gas traps, so heliosphere can’t breath properly) Ya know the interstellar region is a messy and chaotic place, (probably where the sun gets some of its chaotic attitude lol)
    How about a Medieval warm period created by warm interstellar cloudlette (warm ionized cloudettes too sure) wafting over and around your helisophere bubble or a shock zone. Your ambient background in interstellar space has like moving scenery.
    Just passed thru a shock zone lasting maybe 50 years, wouldn’t we expect the region around a collision zone to have wafting cloudlettes travelling in the same direction as the interstellar clouds themselves?
    The solar cycle varies? Well so does the so called ambient background and we are learning just how frequent those changes can be within the local interstellar neighborhood this heliosphere is embedded in.
    Here’s a bizarro..
    The local cavity is open above the halo as well as below. (it’s chute) vizualize a blast coming down the chute and taking us all out to become one of those little merging galaxies we see wrapped around the Milky Way.

  152. “While the top of the conveyor belt has been moving at record-high speed, the bottom seems to be moving at record-low speed. Another contradiction.”
    Perhaps it’s just volume. To use the river analogy, when a river across as a shallow bar, the current is always faster than when it is in the deeper channels.
    I know absolutely nothing about the Sun. But have a fair bit of experience working with agricultural research scientists. As a result I’m no longer surprised by any research scientist’s ability to overlook the obvious.They seem to hate simple answers.

  153. Leif
    You realize that I had the advantage of reading the investigative studies at http://www.leif.org. None of which are disputed. What is however asserted is that the mechanisms driving the solar dynamo are dependent upon its location in the galaxy….I am quite confident that data obtained from SDO will correspond with the data events registered by Voyager and next generation Voyagers….As will the continuation of earthbound events associated with the 700 years young Ice Age

  154. As long as were on a hemispheric rant.. why doe the IBEX see an eqautorial and N. Hemispheric ribbon? Interaction region is T shaped not X?

  155. kim (10:43:04) :
    Does anyone have any idea why the sunspots during the Maunder Minimum were predominately southern hemispheric?
    No, but such asymmetry is not unusual and does not need any special pleading for an explanation.

  156. Leif
    You realize that I had the advantage of reading the excellent investigative studies at http://www.leif.org. None of which recruit dispute. What is however asserted is that the mechanisms driving the solar dynamo are dependent upon its location in the galaxy (points that are obviously known). I feel therefore that most are quite confident that data obtained from SDO will correspond with the data events registered by Voyager and next generation Voyagers….As will the continuation of earthbound events associated with the 700 years young Ice Age.

  157. ………………CRS, Dr.P.H. (13:34:48) :
    The climate change crowd seem to think we are ignorant, Neanderthal “deniers” without science…..quite honestly, I see MUCH more honest peer review going on these comment threads than in the published climatology literature!
    ————————–
    Truth be known i’ve got to plead guilty here to the ignorant, Neanderthal, denier
    bits but thanks to the great brain trust on here…i’ve got science!

  158. David H seems like a nice guy but im supprised he still has a job. Besides telling us about satellite data, what else of what he does is correct? all his predictions, models, knowledge of the sun all seem to be wrong.

  159. Amino Acids in Meteorites (wrt):
    Ross McKitrick on the development of poor countries and coal (and)
    John Christy on the morals of energy use for development
    It’s hard to disagree with these positions.

  160. andy adkins (15:02:06) :
    What is however asserted is that the mechanisms driving the solar dynamo are dependent upon its location in the galaxy (points that are obviously known)
    Your problem is this statement:
    andy adkins (11:33:06) :
    the galactic environment that the sun encounters changes its mechanisms of energy action. The sun’s core becomes protonically heavier
    This is complete nonsense. The energy generation is the p-p chain that depends on temperature in the core which is turn depends on the weight of the outer layers, none of which change, on timescales under a million years and none of which depends on the position in the Galaxy.
    Carla (14:14:02) :
    The Group W cult should realize that the galactic magnetism can’t travel upstream in a Mach-11 supersonic solar wind. So nothing there, move on 🙂

  161. bob paglee (14:09:11) :
    The upper ellipse in the artist’s concept shows an arrowhead that correctly indicates the direction of flow, but the arrowhead on the lower figure appears to be incorrect

    The flow is shown by the yellow curves, and the arrows are correct on those.
    The wobbly black curve and the black ellipses are meant to show the direction and distortion by differential rotation of the magnetic field, not the plasma flow.
    “Sunspot Number 20”
    is just the sunspot number divided by 20, to make the scales compatible.
    There appears to be either a wild point
    The data are noisy, so show spurious peaks and dips here and there.

  162. For some commenting here who seem to want a thorough refresh on basic physics, including: Celestial Mechanics, Heat and Thermodynamics, Planetary Photometry, Stellar Atmospheres
    Search for:
    site:astrowww.phys.uvic.ca “J. B. Tatum” Physics topics

  163. Hi Leif,
    You are at least one who steps up and explains what it is. But I don’t see any attempt and explaining the Livingston and Penn theory in any way. But to be fair so is none else. I would like to know how the L & P theory fits in the dynamics of solar activity, since this may explain the ” all knowing Maunder Minimum” as some have suggested. But thank you for your input.

  164. I’ve been curious about the postulated impact of planetary tidal forces upon the sun, resulting in sunspot variability. A good read:
    http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-paper-from-ian-wilson.html
    Leif? We’ve discussed galactic positioning, transient clouds etc. This would seem to be a fairly easy thing to calculate, based upon planetary mass, periodicity, sunspot cycles etc. I’ve seen papers going back to the 1920’s on the topic.
    Thanks to CTM by the way, you are doing a yeoman’s job!

  165. So, now that we’ve come to the end of the deep solar mimimum, how do AGW skeptics explain that we still did have not seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004. and global temps continue at near, or above record levels? Seriously, I concede completely that errors were made by AGW theorists and researchers, but it seems that temps continue at record levels in the troposphere and arctic sea ice continues in a negative anomaly state…exactly two specific events predicted by the AGW hypothesis. What reason would I have to really doubt the AGW models? Specifically look at:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=nh-seaice&year=2010&month=1&ext=gif
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    and tell me what reason I would have to doubt that the AGW hypothesis is correct?

  166. We have a double layer and then accrue a third layer. And at times more and in recent history. swt
    Let’s see, we ride around in this heliosphere bubble, inside a warm cavity (open ended). Cavitie contains warm (LIC) Cool (G) clouds. Now within your respective cavity, cloud configuration in walks a cloudlette. How many layers of what do we have now? For fun add magnetic field config for all components in the Local Cavity. But don’t forget the layers.
    Messy ol chaos anyway.

  167. CRS, Dr.P.H. (16:38:26) :
    I’ve been curious about the postulated impact of planetary tidal forces upon the sun, resulting in sunspot variability
    This goes back to the very discovery of the sunspot cycle in ~1850 and was the accepted explanation until about 1920 when George Hale discovered that sunspots changed polarities from cycle to cycle. That was the death knell for the planetary theory and it has been dead since. Occasionally, people even today sporadically become attracted to it again, but it is not considered valid science by the vast majority of solar physicists [of course, you have to figure in that there is a vast conspiracy among solar physicists to keep the truth from you].
    The galactic thing is even further out on the fringe.
    Jim Arndt (16:37:27) :
    I would like to know how the L & P theory fits in the dynamics of solar activity, since this may explain the ” all knowing Maunder Minimum” as some have suggested.
    First, L&P is not a theory, but an observation. Sunspots are getting warmer [because the magnetic field is weakening – and it is the magnetic field that works as a ‘refrigerator’ hindering the free convection of hot material from below] and therefore the contrast with the surrounding atmosphere is getting smaller. It is an observational fact that when the magnetic field falls below 1500 Gauss, the contrast becomes so low that the spot is effectively invisible. There is, of course, a continuum of field strengths so in practice, it means that smaller spots become harder to see and will disappear from view first. This will skew the sunspot numbers towards values that are too low. We also observe this tendency comparing sunspot counts with other solar activity measures, e.g. the F10.7 radio flux: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
    Contrary to common belief sunspots do not form from a huge ‘flux rope’ that erupts from below, but by the coalescence of many small elements and pores. It is unknown what cause this compaction process, but Ken Schatten has some ideas on that: http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf . NASA, of course, claims they have never seen anything like it before when the Hinode spacecraft observed this process in vivid detail: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/sunspot_10926_is_a_magnetic_trilobite_on_the_sun_video
    The black/white magnetic elements can be seen streaming FROM already formed spots and to converge or assemble into new spots.
    It is possible that the L&P observations show that the ‘compaction’ process varies with time and is becoming quite low now [for unknown reason].
    We know that the cosmic ray modulation did not go away during the Maunder minimum, so the magnetic cycle was still operating. See e.g.: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
    From the paper: “In addition, we reconfirm earlier findings [Beer et al., 1998] of a cyclically active sun during solar minima; a clear Schwabe cycle is present in both cores [10Be] during the Maunder minimum, especially so in NGRIP.”
    Miyahara et al find a similar result during the Spoerer minimum using 14C from Japanese cedar trees: Advances in Space Research
    Volume 40, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1060-1063
    doi:10.1016/j.asr.2006.12.044
    Variation of solar activity from the Spoerer to the Maunder minima
    indicated by radiocarbon content in tree-rings
    Hiroko Miyaharaa, et al.
    Abstract
    This paper presents the results of our measurements of radiocarbon content in Japanese cedar trees […]. We had measured the radiocarbon content around the Spoerer and the Maunder minima, aiming to clarify the characteristics of the 11-year solar cycle during prolonged sunspot minima. The time series of radiocarbon content obtained from Japanese cedar is now available 1413 AD through 1745 AD. Frequency analyses of the radiocarbon data for the Spoerer and the Maunder minima show that the Sun continues periodic variations even during periods of long-lasting sunspot absence […]”
    So, it is now clear that the magnetic cycle does not go away and that the problem must somehow lie in the visibility of Sunspots. My own guess is that the Maunder minimum was just a manifestation of a strong L&P effect.

  168. People, don’t knock David Hathaway.
    Yes, he’s been wrong but he’s stood up and admitted that he’s been wrong (as have pretty much all solar scientists!) regarding understanding and predicting the solar cycle.
    But this is cutting edge stuff, and he’s been doing entirely the right thing by calling into question key assumptions about the behaviour of the Sun which pretty much all solar scientists adhere to (yes, another scientific consensus).
    Hathaway has been open and forthright about the limitations of solar models and associated theories about how the solar cycle works.
    This is good experimental stuff and should be welcomed. Its a world away from the cherry-picking, shut-eyed denialism that is rampant in climate science.

  169. Without saying it, Hathaway is saying that the magnetic density of the interstellar cloud forces the sun to share more energy from its layered reserves faster than it allows them to be replaced
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
    Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery
    12.23.2009
    December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA’s Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.
    andyadkins.livejournal.com/tag/solar science
    Feb. 28th, 2010
    sunspot uptick/head fake is a dependent of interstellar events.This is its era of imminent decline
    location: variations to reduced sunspot activities have enhanced impact upon tectonic events
    mood: sunspot depths and intensities can be used to help assess the Interstellar cloud
    http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1967IAUS…31..385V&classic=YES
    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-study-says-global-warming-may-be.html
    The interstellar cloud forces the sun to share more energy from its layered reserves faster than it allows them to be replaced
    Time Dependent Photon Transport in a Three Dimensional Interstellar Cloud with Stochastic Clumps
    Belleni-Morante, Aldo; Saccomandi, Giuseppe
    Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 234, Issue 1, pp.85-105
    We consider time dependent photon transport in a three dimensional interstellar cloud which occupies a three dimensional regionV. One or more clumps of given shapes are present withinV and their positions are determined by a suitable set of stochastic variables. Iff is the photon number density in the cloud or in the clumps, then our mathematical model leads to two coupled initial value problems for the average photon density over the stochastic variables and forf * =f -. By using the theory of semigroups, we prove existence and uniqueness of a strongly continuous solution and examine the small fluctuation approximation of such a solution.

  170. Leif Svalgaard (18:23:06) :
    ..Contrary to common belief sunspots do not form from a huge ‘flux rope’ that erupts from below, but by the coalescence of many small elements and pores. It is unknown what cause this compaction process,.
    It is possible that the L&P observations show that the ‘compaction’ process varies with time and is becoming quite low now [for unknown reason].
    So, it is now clear that the magnetic cycle does not go away and that the problem must somehow lie in the visibility of Sunspots. My own guess is that the Maunder minimum was just a manifestation of a strong L&P effect.
    ~
    Nice post thanks Leif.
    Wouldn’t it be just dandy to know what the solar cycle was like say ah 20,000 years ago?
    Geesh we really don’t have a good galactic time frame to wrap our heads around.
    Gotta a couple of warmer periods and more on cooler periods or mins. We’ve just gone through a warmer maxi period being followed by cooler. Around and around we go.
    But we site more cooler periods. Which is indicative of what, slowly increasing to cooler like the AG froggy but in the other direction and in the “galactic time frame?” for getting to the G ah ah cloud.
    Group W
    (officially now a cult)
    Thank you Dr. S. may we have another. lol

  171. Carla (19:13:56) :
    Group W (officially now a cult)
    Indeed: dictionary definitions of ‘cult’ include:
    5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity
    7. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group

  172. andy adkins (19:08:34) :
    magnetic density of the interstellar cloud forces the sun to share more energy from its layered reserves faster than it allows them to be replaced
    Much as you would like to think so, it just ain’t so. But I feel that it doesn’t matter what I say in this regard, so shall refrain from further comment on your beliefs.

  173. R. Gates (17:25:02) :
    “So, now that we’ve come to the end of the deep solar mimimum, how do AGW skeptics explain that we still did have not seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004. and global temps continue at near, or above record levels?”
    ***
    You continue to talk about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as if it were a proven fact. It is an unproven hypothesis. There is no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis; only computer models that have been manipulated to conform to a political consensus driven by powerful monied interests.
    Let’s start at the beginning. CO2 molecules capture a small portion of surface energy and transfer this energy to the other gas molecules in the atmosphere. Some of this energy escapes into space and the rest finds its way back to the surface, where it’s eventually re-radiated.
    Note that CO2 doesn’t actually retain energy; it acts only to transfer captured energy to the other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions. In short, the greenhouse effect of CO2, even at concentrations well below current levels, is energy-limited and not concentration-limited.
    Some climate scientists claim that water vapor amplifies the radiative “forcing” of man-made CO2 — creating a sort of magic “multiplier effect” that raises surface temperatures. But where’s the proof? There isn’t any. (“The models all agree,” isn’t proof.)
    Hundreds of thousands of radiosonde measurements have failed to find a pattern of upper trophospheric heating predicted by the models. Global temperatures flatlined in the late 1990s and have been declining slightly since 2002. The IPCC models predicted a steady upward trend, not a decline. Ergo, their predictions have been falsified.
    Scientists don’t understand how the sun works, they don’t understand how clouds work, they have a rudimentary understanding of how oceans work, and they’re still studying the impact of volcanic eruptions. In other words, they still have a lot to learn about the earth’s climate system. Yet, the AGW camp is absolutely certain human-induced CO2 emissions cause global warming.
    There’s not a single piece of evidence in the data record that supports the AGW hypothesis. It is a belief driven by money and a hatred of “polluters,” those nasty capitalists on a mission to destroy Mother Earth through their relentless efforts to raise mankind’s living standards. All of its claims are based on inaccurate, incomplete and misleading analysis. As such, it ranks in the same scientific category as a belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
    But there are still save-the-earth diehards who cling to the bogus man-causes-warming theory.

  174. Leif Svalgaard (19:34:48) :
    Carla (19:13:56) :
    Group W (officially now a cult)
    Indeed: dictionary definitions of ‘cult’ include:
    5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity
    7. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group
    ~
    That definition leaves room for all, it’s a party!
    WOZZ playing Billy Squier on the radio.

  175. Leif Svalgaard (18:23:06) :
    So, it is now clear that the magnetic cycle does not go away and that the problem must somehow lie in the visibility of Sunspots. My own guess is that the Maunder minimum was just a manifestation of a strong L&P effect.
    Exactly! The Sun cycle can be thought of as two rough unevenly sinusoidal waves intersecting each other on a graph of time. When either number (Polarity 1 vs Polarity 2) dips below a certain point, the effect on the sunspot number is nil (as opposed to reducing it), as the total number of sunspots with a certain polarity cannot be below 0 (for obvious reasons). The Livingston and Penn effect brings both cycles down so that more time is spent below the point. In most cases the two cycles have a period of overlap at solar minimum. In this case, the Polarity 2 stayed low as Polarity 1 dropped. During the Maunder Minimum, both waves stayed below zero except at the very top, every 22 years.(Since there are 2 graphs, this works out to sunspots every 11 years.) This means that sunspot numbers below 0, though theoretically impossible, must be considered in order to truly understand the Maunder Minimum (and quite possibly all unusually long minima between cycles).
    http://psc.suijs.info/sc24predict1.htm
    I agree with the prediction at the bottom. It shows a more traditional time for solar maximum, 2011 (vs 2014 by NASA). The end of Cycle 23 (fall of graph 1 below 0) took place on time or maybe a little early. The beginning of Cycle 24 (rise of graph 2 above 0) was the only thing that was late. Some phenomena that have been observed (large active regions near 20-25 degrees latitude that stick around for 2-3 solar rotations) are normally associated with the time around solar maximum. Leif, can you give any feedback on this?
    We live in interesting times.

  176. R. Gates (17:25:02) :
    So, now that we’ve come to the end of the deep solar mimimum, how do AGW skeptics explain that we still did have not seen a positive arctic sea ice anomaly since 2004. and global temps continue at near, or above record levels? Seriously, I concede completely that errors were made by AGW theorists and researchers, but it seems that temps continue at record levels in the troposphere and arctic sea ice continues in a negative anomaly state…exactly two specific events predicted by the AGW hypothesis. What reason would I have to really doubt the AGW models? Specifically look at:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=nh-seaice&year=2010&month=1&ext=gif
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
    and tell me what reason I would have to doubt that the AGW hypothesis is correct?
    My reply;
    You seem to suppose that you could be right with out knowing the basic driving mechanisms of the weather or climate.
    Take some time, read this all the way through then give me an honest answer of what you think, simple enough.?
    http://research.aerology.com/aerology-analog-weather-forecasting-method/

  177. Leif Svalgaard (22:33:41) :
    We do measure the total energy of solar radiation across the entire spectrum.
    And what sort of information does the spectral irriadiance impart, on say the green line at 560nm,or the h20 band at 1500nm?

  178. maksimovich (20:21:12) :
    And what sort of information does the spectral irriadiance impart, on say the green line at 560nm,or the h20 band at 1500nm?
    I’m not sure what you are asking. Spectral irradiance is different from Total irradiance and is measured in a completely different way. For example, on the SORCE mission there is one instrument, TIM, for the Total Irradiance, and another, SIM, for spectral irradiance. The TIM instrument is uniformly sensitive to all wavelengths from the most energetic and short wavelength X-rays to the very longest infrared wavelengths. Gamma rays and radio waves are so many orders of magnitude down that they do not contribute. A bolometer [a device that absorbs radiation and converts it to internal heat and sensed as a temperature increase in the collector is a very simple device and is the sensor of choice for measuring TSI over the past 100 years. Consider a black metal disk with a temperature sensor placed behind an aperture. When the aperture is open and pointed at the Sun, the disk warms and we measure TSI by measuring the temperature increase.

  179. I think David Hathaway should be commended for not lacing his artcle with agenda but instead added the proper ‘might’, ‘could’, and ‘possibly’s. That read more as proper science article about a question.
    I wonder if this might be looked at from another perspective. Could the conveyors have a normal speed of ~12.5 m/s as it was holding in the months in 2008-2009 when there were no sunpots at all (look closely at the graph) and any deviation from this tends to slow or speed the normal advance. Could you follow that? Maybe the conveyor free-idles at ~12.5 m/s, all others readings are showing forces slowing or speeding it from that idle speed. All data points at spotless months seem to show that onesingle speed. That’s curious.

  180. and tell me what reason I would have to doubt that the AGW hypothesis is correct?
    You also need to show that it is significant, and run-away and a bad thing. Merely proving that AGW exists, per se, is not enough to justify any action based on it. I will accept GW, but not talk or run-away acceleration or tipping points.
    And while you accept that errors have been made in the past, you do not seem to accept that any more errors will turn up.
    There is some evidence against warming, because non-“adjusted” temperatures are not accelerating up. Take away the satellite measurements, and what solid proof of warming is there? Antarctic ice and Arctic ice are not proving terribly decisive one way or another.
    If those satellite values that prove we are at a hottest point are, in fact, in error (or true but irrelevant), then the whole of AGW pretty much crumbles.

  181. kirkmyers (19:44:49) :

    Let’s start at the beginning. CO2 molecules capture a small portion of surface energy and transfer this energy to the other gas molecules in the atmosphere. Some of this energy escapes into space and the rest finds its way back to the surface, where it’s eventually re-radiated.
    Note that CO2 doesn’t actually retain energy; it acts only to transfer captured energy to the other molecules in the atmosphere through collisions. In short, the greenhouse effect of CO2, even at concentrations well below current levels, is energy-limited and not concentration-limited.

    I’m so glad you made that point. It is one aspect of radiative transfer I see miss stated many times. That’s a good proper explanation and key to proper understanding of how the atmosphere works.
    And I take the ‘energy-limited’ means the speed is limited at which a given amount of energy can move through a given amount of the gas and re-distributed to other molecules. The admittance is finite. Right? Is admittance the correct property?

  182. Richard Holle (20:11:02) :
    I have yet to see a raw, rural dataset of sufficient length (>3 PDO’s) that shows a true warming signal. The null hypothesis remains.
    As for Deep Solar Minimums, it goes like this: Flashing lights as the latest pull on a slot machine gets a jackpot. Without knowing what denomination of machine is at hand, # of coins inserted, wheels in play and the jackpot type, tell me what the payoff is.
    But this much is rather obvious: A trace gas in the atmosphere holds as much weight as hitching the wagon to delta TSI.

  183. kirkmyers (19:44:49) :
    No, the term is definitely not admittance. Should have taken the time to open my book.

  184. kirkmyers (19:44:49) :
    WELL SAID!
    But don’t worry…if that is the best RGates can do [pretty pathetic proffer: “AGW models predicted this” etc. ad nauseum]….then his posts are a good example of that little problem Darwin was talking about…
    Next slide, please.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  185. Leif Svalgaard (20:37:26)
    I am aware of that,the distinction is necessary for either radiative reasons or aeronomy calculations,and the absorption lines etc.
    In Krivova et al reconstruction of spectral irradiance fig7e and f we can see a decrease in the h20 band in the early seventies,and little decrease in the h20/co2 overlap bands.
    At present say the spectra I mentioned above,in the descending phase of sc23 these spectra have increased slightly then stabilized,

  186. Regarding “CO2 absorption”: Here is a statement by Dr. Pierre Latour, PhD and PE in chemical engineering and PE in process control engineering, which appeared in an opinion column in the February issue of Hydrocarbon Processing magazine:
    “CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) that constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in Earth’s atmosphere. The first 50 ppm of CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1000 ppm with no additional discernable absorption-emission.”
    When it comes to “global warming,” CO2 is an innocent bystander.

  187. StarBP (20:05:39) :
    Leif, can you give any feedback on this?
    Although we think we can predict the gross features of the next cycle we don’t know the details, so I can’t place much credence on any detailed predictions, but times are interesting for sure.

  188. Much like explaining the operation of a plasma focus device without bringing electricity into the model.

  189. Anna v
    In any case, the only true climate prophecy is that “an ice age is coming” maybe in 100 years, maybe in 1000 but the clockwork of the Vostock data shows that it will come. So, if humans are not blown up in a nuclear catastrophe, or an asteroid does not hit earth, they should be planning for an ice age…
    I do believe though that there should be geo engineering studies for the case of an ice age coming. A volcano explosion could trigger it at any time.

    While it could take as much as 80,000 years or so for the next ice age to fully bottom out, a VEI 7 or P eruption would vastly accelerate the progression. A series of relatively close VEI 4, 5 & 6 eruptions would make for a very harsh and catastrophic downward spike.
    Just look at what Redoubt did for cooling things down in 2009/2010, blowing to little over 12 miles high and following with more than a dozen similarly high eruptions. Sarychev soon followed and made its contribution. Those were on the heels of Okmok and Kasatochi in the northern hemisphere. A few years of no larger eruptions would be ok with me.
    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

  190. @JMANON (05:49:58) :
    “We can’t survive “warm is bad” and any effective intervention that can only reduce temperatures but not elevate them could be the end of us all.”
    – – – – – – – –
    You make many good points. We also cannot survive “greenhouse gases = pollution”.
    If CO2 is pollution, then water vapor is also pollution, only thirty-fold. Where does the insanity stop? It doesn’t.
    A case in point, Nathan Myhrvold (formerly the Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft) proposes pumping SO2 into the upper atmosphere to mitigate global warming. He doesn’t appear to have any concern about pumping a true pollutant into the air (to offset the alleged effects of the other “pollutant” CO2).
    Video here:
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/12/20/gps.climate.change.cnn?iref=allsearch
    I viewed the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for sulfur dioxide. SO2 truly is a pollutant that has adverse health effects on the eyes, skin and lungs when exposure occurs. See the EPA site to see what they say about SO2.
    http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/

  191. Leif,
    Regardless the L & P is a theory until proven. I do think it does explain many past events.

  192. Leif,
    Thanks for resolving my earlier questions. But the question is — why does the Sun’s surface plasma appear to be moving faster than the return flow far below the surface? Could this result from compression of the plasma gases down below caused by
    sun’s gravity acting on the mass of the the gases above? And because the plasma traveling near the Sun’s core has a much shorter route to go (Pi X R/2) in returning to the vicinity of the equator, shouldn’t one expect it to be traveling much more slowly than the stuff on the surface?
    Could fabrication of a big sunspot at the surface be encouraged by a rotating hurricane-like surface storm in the plasma created by a Coriolis effect?

  193. Ed Murphy (07:47:37) :
    a VEI 7 or P eruption would vastly accelerate the progression.
    Look at the site again. “P” refers to “unknown magnitude”. Due to modern instruments, a VEI-P eruption will never occur again. Also, there is a level 8 on the scale. No VEI-8 eruption has occurred in the last 75,000 years. Although I do not believe the 2012 doomsday theories in the least, it is interesting to note that the movie 2012 did not mention anything about the cold summers and winters after the Yellowstone eruption depicted in the film. The film also did not discuss the theory that a few very cold summers in a row (which a VEI-8 eruption would almost definitely cause) during a mildly favorable Milankovich period, combined with a grand solar minimum for the 20 years afterward, may trigger the “tipping point” that has caused that last few glacial periods.

  194. Mooloo said:
    “Take away the satellite measurements, and what solid proof of warming is there? Antarctic ice and Arctic ice are not proving terribly decisive one way or another.”
    First, why would you want to take away one of the most powerful scientific tools we have in the satellite data? Second, we have lot’s of proof even without satellites, from rising oceans to melting permafrost. Just ask the folks who live in N. Alaska. The melting permafrost is directly related to the warmer temps in the area and you don’t need satellites to see it…just look at the buckling roads and collapsing houses…the permafrost is melting.
    Secondly, you say the arctic sea ice is not being terribly decisive? How about 6 years without a positive sea ice anomaly? How is that not being decisive?
    Look, I’m not out to convince anyone of anything, but I am out to know the truth, or lack thereof, about AGWT. I am a 75% believer in AGW, meaning I suppose that I am a 30% skeptic. I could become a 50% or more skeptic, if shown facts as to why I should. So far, I’ve only seen recycled arguments from the AGW skeptic group, which focus more on personal attacks on scientists or exaggerating the importance of those errors that have been made. For example, it matters not one bit to me whether glaciers in Asia are going to be gone in 25 years or 200 years…the direction of the change is what it important…they are melting.
    AGWT makes some specific claims of measurable effects. These effects are being observed…i.e. a warming arctic, melting permafrost, loss of sea ice on a year-to-year basis, acidification of the oceans, rising sea levels, cooling of the stratosphere, etc. Competing theories (such as Dr. Nicola Scaffeta’s) also make specific claims of observable effects. If for example, 2010 turns out to be the warmest year on temperature record, it will only reinforce my belief in AGWT and be pretty damaging to Dr. Scaffeta’s theories. If global temps actually fall on average between now and 2030, it will be strong support for Dr. Scaffeta’s hypothesis and AGWT will be essentially dead.

  195. R. Gates (12:25:35) wrote: [evidence of] “…rising oceans…”
    What evidence of rising oceans?
    Sea level has risen ever so gradually over the last century with even a slight decrease in that gradual rise in the last number of years. Current rate of sea level increase if continued for a century would add up to centimeters.
    (Assuming for for the sake of argument those figures are accurate.)
    This observation & measurement doesn’t conform to the predictions based on the computer models.
    A falsification.
    R. Gates, you’ll have to do better than pitching the same woo others do, to have your comments taken seriously.

  196. I’m not an astrophysicist, but I have stirred pots of boiling water.
    As the stirring increases, the boiling decreases. And why not! More mass is being transferred per unit time from the bottom heat source to the top heat release points thus dropping the temperature build up.
    It seems to me that a similar process is going on with the solar conveyor belt; faster belt equals less boiling.
    The question now is: why the faster belt? Could the answer be: planetary mechanics?

  197. bob paglee (11:58:20) :
    why does the Sun’s surface plasma appear to be moving faster than the return flow far below the surface?
    Because the density, d, down there is much higher [10 X, say]. If you assume that the transport of mass is the same, then the mass flowing near the surface is M.surface (Volume.surface*d.surface) x speed.surface and at depth M.depth = Volume.depth*d.depth). Volume.depth is nearly the same as Volume.surface [even if the length is a bit smaller, the thickness is probably a bit larger]. So is M.surface = M.depth, the speed.depth = speed.surface * d.surface / d.depth or speed.depth = speed.surface / 10.

  198. Charles S. Opalek, PE (13:51:47) :
    The question now is: why the faster belt?
    There is good evidence that solar activity [magnetic sunspots] slow down the flow. Imagine you were trying to run a Marathon on a New York sidewalk. The more people crowding the sidewalk, the slower you can run.

  199. Charles S. Opalek, PE (13:51:47) :
    The question now is: why the faster belt? Could the answer be: planetary mechanics?
    ~
    No..
    If Group W can’t have Interstellar ‘magnetic reconnection’ mechanism glitch, in triple layers, no planetary mechanics for you.

  200. James F. Evans,
    Are you saying sea levels have not risen? To call this statement of factual data a “falsification” shows the extreme nature of the true skeptics of AGW. See:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    Explore this link for a brief overview, or google a thousand other links to verify sea level increases. Those who are 99% sure of their position I define as the true believers and true skeptics of AGW and neither will convince the other of anything, and since I don’t fall in either camp, I have no interest in trying to change people’s minds. I care about honest review of all the data, and when someone tells me the arctic sea ice has recovered from its negative anomaly, or that the world is actually cooling, or that we’re going to see cooling until 2030– then I say, “show me the data!”. Currently there is more data to support, rather than refute AGWT, thought there is some inconsistencies (such as the growth of the antarctic sea ice). This is why I’m only 75% convinced AGWT is correct, and not yet a true believer.

  201. R. Gates (14:30:15):
    “Those who are 99% sure of their position I define as the true believers and true skeptics of AGW and neither will convince the other of anything, and since I don’t fall in either camp, I have no interest in trying to change people’s minds.”
    Wrong, bucko. Aside from the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove, you continue to ignore the numerous links I and others provide that refute your world view, putting you solidly in the 1% category.
    You can change my mind by providing solid testable, transparent, empirical evidence of CAGW. If you ever do, I will sit up straight and pay attention. If your evidence withstands falsification, it will convince me.
    Per your personal definition I am a true skeptic, as opposed to a true believer. As such, I like to provide more information when someone posts a single graph, expecting it to end the debate. That way, others can decide for themselves what is and isn’t factual:
    First, UoC provides numerous sea level charts, and regularly re-adjusts them in subsequent releases after the fact. This blink gif gives an example: click [takes a few seconds to load]
    The sea level is increasing in line with its long term trend from the LIA, and from the last great Ice Age before that: click
    As we see, nothing unusual is occurring. The sea level naturally rises due to the planet’s natural warming. Satellite measurements confirm the rising sea level. But the rate turns out to be lower than predicted, as Willis Eschenbach shows: click
    The late, great John Daly shows that Tasmanian sea levels have not appreciably changed since at least 1841: click
    Multiple peer reviewed studies show the sea level rise is much lower than the IPCC claims: click
    And Holgate shows the cyclicality of sea level changes: click
    As a fan of anomalies, this chart should interest you: click
    And for a comprehensive discussion of sea levels, this atlas of sea levels is must reading for anyone interested in a good long term overview: click
    Since GCMs projected rapidly rising sea levels, they are once again shown to be incorrect. And if the planet should descend into another Ice Age, or even another LIA, sea levels would be expected to decline.
    We are fortunate to be in a very benign climate, historically speaking. A one-third increase in CO2 has made no measurable difference in the natural, long term sea level rise, once again falsifying CAGW, as can be seen in the charts provided.

  202. R. Gates (14:30:15) replied: “Are you saying sea levels have not risen?”
    No.
    This is what I stated: “Sea level has risen ever so gradually over the last century with even a slight decrease in that gradual rise in the last number of years. Current rate of sea level increase if continued for a century would add up to centimeters.”
    It’s a straight-forward statement.
    Either you don’t comprehend English very well (which I’m sure you do), or you wanted to twist my words a little. (Why twist at all?)
    In response, please read Smokey’s (15:43:12) comment above.
    Backs up my comment to a “T”.
    Thanks smokey for putting some teeth into my comment and demonstrating that R. Gates is engaging in spin, hoping to catch a few eyes of some casual new readers to this website that don’t know the actual scientific observations & measurements that have been recorded.
    R. Gates, I’d like to see a response from you regarding smokey’s data points.
    If not…well, then I suggest you’ve been exposed as just another AGW proponent pitching woo and hoping to pull the wool over the eyes of some of the readers, here.
    It ain’t going to happen, my friend…
    And, it’s getting harder to do that all the time wherever you pitch your woo.

  203. Dear Solar Commenters,
    Ahhhh, I missed out on the great solar dialog in this post!!!!
    Was traveling up to Tokyo …….
    Now, i need to catch up.
    Looks like you guys/gals had a lot of fun in the sun.
    John

  204. StarBP (12:00:03) :
    Thanks, I stand corrected.
    Interesting on your ‘tipping point’ reference… this probably begs to be re-examined given who was running the GCM. What say you?
    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Toba6revised.pdf
    In the only general circulation model (GCM) simulation of the response to Toba so far, Jones et al. [2005] calculated the climate response to a stratospheric loading 100 times that of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo, but with the same timing as that of the Pinatubo eruption. They found a very large climate system response, with a maximum global-average cooling of 10 K. But the climate system started to warm back up in a few years, and the cooling was only about 2 K after a decade with no indication of the initiation of an ice age.
    ….
    Jones et al. [2005] assumed that the SO2
    emission from Toba was 100 times that of Pinatubo, but other estimates put it closer to 300 times Pinatubo [Bekki et al., 1996; Oppenheimer, 2002].

  205. RayG (23:14:27) :
    ” I am sure that we will find that we have to produce a plan for Solar Climate Control to prevent anthropogenic solar warming involving transfer of trillions of dollars to Martians and Venusians”
    Yes. We will need to as they will be under severe threat of a forced anomalous radiation trend

  206. Ed Murphy (17:26:48) :
    Interesting on your ‘tipping point’ reference… this probably begs to be re-examined given who was running the GCM. What say you?
    There are many things the models leave out. The Earth usually compensates by reducing cloud cover, but during a solar minimum these compensations are suppressed by increased cosmic rays. A VEI-8 eruption by itself would likely not initiate the sequence. However, such an eruption near the beginning or middle of a solar Grand Minimum would likely be able to do so if the Milankovitch cycles are at least slightly favorable. Also, Toba erupted during a glacial period. The tipping point had already been reached ~40 kyr before the eruption, and a VEI-8 volcano combined with solar and orbital cycles is definitely not enough to set off the second tipping point (which was last set off ~750Ma BP).

  207. Lief
    Not only does my analysis provides a perfect explanation for the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it steps beyond illusional efforts to fit the phantoms of what is today for conceived of as independently scattered gravity bound bodies that too often sabotage the quality of thought for the big bang is real theorists; an ideology that is only suitable as a model for identifying the components and formulaic interactions and processes of the time of creation was NEVER 0 .
    As I said http://www.leif.org does present excellent investigations detailing the surface events occurring on the sun
    Though now I am more interested reading about the edies of transport on its spiral

  208. andy adkins (19:48:38) :
    Not only does my analysis provides a perfect explanation for the Faint Young Sun Paradox, it steps beyond illusional efforts
    I must admit that you leave me behind in the dust. I have no idea what you are talking about, it makes no sense at all to me.

  209. I am a 75% believer in AGW, meaning I suppose that I am a 30% skeptic.

    There’s more of you than meets the eye!

  210. StarBP (18:44:38) :
    Well I’m still learning, maybe Leif will assist us?
    From the Toba6revised.pdf I posted, the glaciation stage of the last ice age soon followed the Toba eruption, not preceded it. But what the authors want to say is that Toba did not cause the build up of the ice. Even though the climate was poised to cool dramatically anyway because of Malankovitch cycle progression. Not enough to go on for them to push [Sagan et al., 1979] aside just yet.
    The Earth usually compensates by reducing cloud cover, but during a solar minimum these compensations are suppressed by increased cosmic rays.
    In my opinion only the Sun TSI and a lack of larger volcano eruption (over a period of around 4-5 years) can significantly reduce cloud cover. Earth has no way to figure out how to compensate. I’m with Leif, that increased cosmic rays probably don’t increase cloud cover, and I’m with him on this graph he carries around. Maybe we’re on different graphs.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.png

  211. James Evans,
    You wanted me to respond to Smokey’s “data points”, well let’s just take one of them, here:
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Sea_Level_Holgate.jpg
    What exactly am I supposed to respond to with this type of “data point”, it is a graph, pulled from what data?, sitting on a AGW skeptics web site? How was this data gathered and who gathered? Who checked the data? Was the data peer reviewed?
    I refuse to waste my time in responding to “data” that has very little background or backup. Much of the links Sparkey gives are exactly like that. I’d like to see published, peer reviewed research, with lengthy analysis…then I’ll gladly respond, and who knows…even change my mind!

  212. andy adkins (19:08:34) :
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/23dec_voyager.htm
    Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery
    12.23.2009
    December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA’s Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.
    ~
    An interstellar cloud that wasn’t supposed to be there? Hmm used to say the heliosphere was still about 10,000 years out from it. Then they thought sooner and now it’s um well maybe we enter the next cloud tomorrow? Now its maybe the Local Bubble isn’t as warm as previously thought, and gee what is heating it anyway?
    Ok, so much for the Group W chatter.
    This may help to enhance some of our current understanding of interstellar clouds and galactic magnetic field reconnection (although on the latter we are still aways out) with these two articles.
    The trouble with the Local Bubble
    Barry Y. Welsh · Robin L. Shelton
    Received: 18 March 2009 / Accepted: 29 May 2009 / Published online: 17 June 2009
    © The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
    Abstract Themodel of a Local Hot Bubble has been widely
    accepted as providing a framework that can explain the ubiquitous
    presence of the soft X-ray background diffuse emission.
    We summarize the current knowledge on this local interstellar
    region, paying particular reference to observations
    that sample emission from the presumed local million degree
    K hot plasma. However, we have listed numerous observations
    that are seemingly in conflict with the concept of
    a hot Local Bubble. In particular, the discovery of solar wind
    charge exchange that can generate an appreciable soft X-ray
    background signal within the heliosphere, has led to a reassessment
    of the generally accepted model that requires a
    hot local plasma.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/y6j6220q61850012/fulltext.pdf
    Our understanding of heliospheric reconnection continues..
    THE VECTOR DIRECTION OF THE INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD OUTSIDE THE HELIOSPHERE
    M. Swisdak et al 2010 ApJ 710 1769-1775 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/710/2/
    ABSTRACT. We propose that magnetic reconnection at the heliopause (HP) only occurs where the interstellar magnetic field points nearly anti-parallel to the heliospheric field. By using large-scale magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of the heliosphere to provide the initial conditions for kinetic simulations of HP reconnection, we show that the energetic pickup ions downstream from the solar wind termination shock induce large diamagnetic drifts in the reconnecting plasma and stabilize non-anti-parallel reconnection. With this constraint, the MHD simulations can show where HP reconnection most likely occurs. We also suggest that reconnection triggers the 2-3 kHz radio bursts that emanate from near the HP. Requiring the burst locations to coincide with the loci of anti-parallel reconnection allows us to determine, for the first time, the vector direction of the local interstellar magnetic field. We find it to be oriented toward the southern solar magnetic pole.
    Print publication: Issue 2 (2010 February 20)
    Received 2009 August 10, accepted for publication 2010 January 12
    Published 2010 February 2
    http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/710/2/1769
    Moving on .. we are ..

  213. Carla (14:57:58) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    ..We propose that magnetic reconnection at the heliopause (HP) only occurs where the interstellar magnetic field points nearly anti-parallel to the heliospheric field.
    ..we show that the energetic pickup ions downstream from the solar wind termination shock induce large diamagnetic drifts in the reconnecting plasma and stabilize non-anti-parallel reconnection.
    ..for the first time, the vector direction of the local interstellar magnetic field. We find it to be oriented toward the southern solar magnetic pole.
    Chomp chomp crunch cruch good stuff Maynard. Ways to go yet, ..yeah sure.
    “””We find it to be oriented toward the southern solar magnetic pole.”””
    Rolling Stones, “She’s so Cold.”

  214. Leif, you may interesting that they discovered in Xray site lines, of N. Heliospere,, solar wind charge exchange contamination of the the data. This was telling them the local bubble was hotter than it really is. hmm were they looking North on the ram side of the heliosphere?
    3 Ramifications for the ‘accepted local hot bubble
    model’
    It is clear from the preceding sections that several important
    problems plague the traditional model of the Local Hot
    Bubble. The most important of these is the contamination
    by solar wind charge exchange X-rays. The predicted severity
    of the 1/4 and 3/4 keV X-ray contamination by this
    heliospherically generated emission for low latitude sightlines
    ranges from ∼ 1/2 in the model of Robertson and
    Cravens (2003) to approximately 100% from the calculations
    of Koutroumpa et al. (2009). Thus, new models of the
    local region range from those that are ∼ 1/2 as bright in Xrays
    as the traditional Local Hot Bubble models to those that
    have no local hot gas in the Galactic plane. In either case, the
    model must include X-ray producing gas located at high latitudes
    because solar wind charge exchange models cannot
    explain all of the observed high latitude X-ray emission. In
    this subsection, we consider the first case in which the Local
    Hot Bubble is half as bright in the plane as previously
    believed. In the following section, we consider the other extreme,
    that in which gas in the local ISM produces none of
    the soft X-rays seen at low latitudes.
    Firstly, if emission from a Local Hot Bubble is diminished
    relative to traditional models, it is diminished at all latitudes
    by a similar amount (∼330×10−6 counts s−1 arcsec−2
    in the ROSAT 1/4 keV band) according to Koutroumpa et al.
    (2008a). Subtracting a constant intensity from the observed
    anisotropic distribution of locally produced X-rays leaves
    a more extremely anisotropic distribution of X-rays which
    can then be attributed to the Local Hot Bubble. If we make
    the standard assumption that the X-ray emissivity is constant
    throughout this emitting region, then the Local Hot
    Bubble must be extremely distorted, with strong lobes in the
    northern and southern hemispheres and a tight waist in the
    Galactic plane. Secondly, the model solar wind charge exchange
    spectra are harder than the observed spectrum. We
    conclude this because the solar wind charge exchange predictions
    of Koutroumpa et al. account for a greater fraction
    of the observed X-rays in the 1/4 keV band than in theWisconsin
    B band (130 to 188 eV). In order to compensate for
    the hardness of the solar wind charge exchange spectrum,
    the Local Hot Bubble spectrum must be softer than previously
    believed. Thus, the local emitting plasma would need
    to be cooler than previously believed.
    Any revisions to the X-ray brightness and temperature
    require that the electron density be recalculated. If the temperature
    and path length are unaffected, then a reduction in
    the Local Hot Bubble emission intensity by a factor of 2
    would imply a reduction in the electron density by a factor
    of 1/√2, resulting in ne ∼ 0.005 cm−3. This serves as
    a reasonable starting point. However, once the solar wind
    charge exchange contamination is better understood, this estimate
    can be improved upon by an improved derivation of
    the temperature of the Local Hot Bubble plasma (and thus
    the emissivity) and the intensity of Local Hot Bubble X-rays
    in the direction of MBM12. Because the electron density
    and temperature are less than previously believed, the thermal
    pressure must also be less. The reduction in the electron
    density by 1/√2 alone, brings the estimated thermal pressure
    down from 12,250 Kcm−3 to ∼ 8,700 Kcm−3. Any
    revision to the local plasma temperature will lower the gas
    pressure further.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/y6j6220q61850012/fulltext.pdf

  215. R Gates:
    1.6 mm/year in http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038720.shtml
    1.8 mm/year in http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext?ID=122683866&CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
    According to the IPCC, the long run rise is 1.8mm/year Don’t you think it is odd that you would use a statistically insignificant short term rise in (adjusted) satellite readings for sea level (essentially 1993-2003) while complaining when skeptics do the same thing with temperature?
    Here’s a weighted average from tidal gauges 1.1 mm/year in http://www.burtonsys.com/climategate/global_msl_trend_analysis.html

  216. Carla (17:42:18) :
    Leif, you may interesting that they discovered in Xray site lines, of N. Heliospere
    We are learning more and more about the local medium, but all of this has no effect on anything on Earth [as far as I can tell]. We once thought that the Galactic field could be influencing the inner heliosphere http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/4158/51
    But we don’t believe that anymore, now that we have a lot more knowledge of both the Heliosphere and the Interstellar medium. It is like what you can read on ancient maps [at least on one :-)] “there be dragons here”. We have gone there, and no dragons. http://www.maphist.nl/extra/herebedragons.html

  217. Well thanks Leif, fire breathing dragons heating the local cavity. I thought from the article that galactic rain had some potential, (they are not exactly sure where the old pressumed heat was coming from anyway.)
    But if it makes you happy I can attach a few dragons to the edge of the heliospheres map.
    Apparently some pretty extreme contamination from solar wind charge exchange, up to half of the brightness (which was implying hot cavity) in some areas. Which of course leads them to believe the cavity that surrounds the heliosphere is warmer than what it is in reality. Ok yeah no big deal.
    Changes all around in what we perceive to be truth.

  218. Leif: Don’t know if you are still coming back to this thread. But….i’ve another stupid question: Assuming the cosmic wave background, which is near the outer boundary shock wave of the bigbang, is travelling away from us at presumably near the speed of light, then any photon radiating from that material back towards us wouid be travelling at the actual speed of light for a net speed of 10 M.P.H. or so?

  219. johnnythelowery (20:26:57) :
    Assuming the cosmic wave background, which is near the outer boundary shock wave of the bigbang, is travelling away from us at presumably near the speed of light
    Towards us at precisely the speed of light.
    so?
    No, for the above reason. And you can add or subtract as much as you want to/from the speed of light, the result is still the speed of light.

  220. R. Gates (12:03:37):

    What exactly am I supposed to respond to with this type of “data point”, it is a graph, pulled from what data?

    So out of the dozen or more links I’ve provided, you picked one to complain about: Holgate’s chart.
    Sorry you’re not up to speed on Dr Simon Holgate, he’s peer reviewed and has been around a long time. I’m not surprised you don’t understand that his chart simply shows predictable natural variability.
    When you stop cherry-picking the Arctic, and pretending that neither the Antarctic nor Global ice extent matters… wake me.
    In the mean time, more natural variability: click

  221. Leif Svalgaard (15:57:09) :
    bob paglee (14:09:11) :
    The upper ellipse in the artist’s concept shows an arrowhead that correctly indicates the direction of flow, but the arrowhead on the lower figure appears to be incorrect
    The flow is shown by the yellow curves, and the arrows are correct on those.
    The wobbly black curve and the black ellipses are meant to show the direction and distortion by differential rotation of the magnetic field, not the plasma flow.

    could you explain this part of the graphic in any more detail for a science neophyte?
    What do you mean by “differential rotation of the magnetic field”?
    Why are the lines of flow of the “conveyor belt” only on one side of the sun?

  222. Bill Parsons (09:58:54) :
    What do you mean by “differential rotation of the magnetic field”?
    The Sun rotates faster at the Equator [and low latitudes, generally], and the magnetic field is thus dragged along and will therefore be ‘wound up’. The ‘bump’ is the first sign of the winding.
    Why are the lines of flow of the “conveyor belt” only on one side of the sun?
    Because it is a ‘cut out’ of the Sun. Rest assured, it wraps all the way around.

  223. Are the directions of the arrows supposed to be equator-ward in the parts of the loops near the surface of the sun? So magnetic charges get carried along the surface toward the equator?

  224. R. Gates (12:03:37) :
    Well, you could respond to the fact that my characterization of sea level rise reflects the data (all the data, not just one data point which you attempted to focus on).
    Evans wrote: “Sea level has risen ever so gradually over the last century with even a slight decrease in that gradual rise in the last number of years. Current rate of sea level increase if continued for a century would add up to centimeters.”
    R. Gates, you could apologize for twisting my statement.
    You could examine smokey’s data points and then synthesize the points into a summation.
    There were any number of ways to respond (including the inadequate way you did choose to respond).
    R. Gates, if you attempt to pass off the canard of significant “rising oceans” at this website, expect to get shot down and sent packing.
    And soon that will happen wherever you go because the word will have gotten around — as it is, at this very second as I type.
    Man-made Global Warming is the biggest hoax in history!

  225. Please ignore
    1
    [img src=”http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” /]
    2
    [img src=”http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” ]
    3
    [image src=”http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” /]
    4
    [image src=”http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” ]
    5
    [img=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” ]
    6
    [image=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” ]
    7
    [img=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” /]
    8
    [image=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4318051005_95c1f0fe2b.jpg” alt=”flight” /]
    REPLY: DO NOT put brackets around links, it breaks them simply put them in as you would a browser. -A

  226. How about this:

    The Chair of the IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri, elected in May 2002; previously Robert Watson headed the IPCC. The chair is assisted by an elected Bureau including vice-chairs, Working Group co-chairs and a Secretariat (see below).
    The IPCC Panel is composed of representatives appointed by governments and organizations. Participation of delegates with appropriate expertise is encouraged. Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups are held at the level of government representatives. Non Governmental and Intergovernmental Organizations may be allowed to attend as observers. Sessions of the IPCC Bureau, workshops, expert and lead authors meetings are by invitation only. Attendance at the 2003 meeting included 350 government officials and climate change experts. After the opening ceremonies, closed plenary sessions were held. The meeting report states there were 322 persons in attendance at Sessions with about seven-eighths of participants being from governmental organizations.

    Sorry, please ignore.

  227. Please ignore
    1
    [img src=”http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg” /]
    2
    [img src=”http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg” ]
    3
    [img src=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg /]
    4
    [img src=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg ]
    5
    [image src=”http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg” /]
    6
    [image src=”http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg” ]
    7
    [image src=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg /]
    8
    [image src=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg ]
    9
    [image=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg ]
    10
    [image=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg /]
    11
    [img=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg ]
    12
    [img=http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/boulder_ft_collins_temps.jpg /]

  228. Bill Parsons (15:59:29) :
    Are the directions of the arrows supposed to be equator-ward in the parts of the loops near the surface of the sun? So magnetic charges get carried along the surface toward the equator?
    Yes, in a sense, new spots occurs progressively closer to the equator as the cycle progresses [black loops] http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif while the remains of dead spots are carried towards the pole [yellow loops]. This is how the cycle is maintained.

Comments are closed.