Roger Longstaff says:
December 24, 2010 at 2:32 am
There can be no argument about the theory of thermonuclear fusion – we tested this to destruction with the hydrogen bomb!
True, but I remember myself as a kid (or a bit grown kid… a teenager, 14) giving a lecture in 1968 about the controlled fusion progress and the harnessing it, that seemed to be just around the corner. It is still there around the corner, darn it!
As the stellar theory goes, the observations do yield results that in many instances contradict the fusion model.
BTW, did you know that some high energy lightning bolts can not only produce x-ray and gamma rays showers, but also apparently “transmute” elements? I had a HD crash recently, so lost a reference, but someone noticed that beside the x-ray/gamma shower, there was an unaccounted presence of isotopes, if I recall correctly, of sulfur and kalium. Which is curious, I seem to recall a segment from Homer’s Odyssey:
“Zeus thundered and hurled his bolt upon the ship, and she quivered from stem to stern, smitten by the bolt of Zeus, and was filled with sulfurous smoke.”
There is a few more of similar utterances there. You may not need a nuclear furnace to transmute elements. Electricity may do the trick too.

Leif Svalgaard says:
December 23, 2010 at 8:05 pm
It all depends on if the Livingston & Penn effect holds up or not. If it does, we’ll have a Maunder Minimum, if not, just a ‘normal’ small cycle, like 100 years ago
That’s a big statement Leif, especially as you have stated not that long ago we are not heading into a grand minimum. The L&P effect is just code for grand minimum…nothing new here, but I would be interested in learning how you foresee a possible Maunder minimum episode, this type of minimum occurs very rarely over the Holocene?

A peer-reviewed paper, Astronomy Letters, 2005:
ELECTRON ACCELERATION BY ELECTRIC FIELDS NEAR THE FOOTPRINTS
OF CURRENT-CARRYING CORONAL MAGNETIC LOOPS
V. V. ZAITSEV
Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Abstract: “We analyze the electric fields that arise at the footpoints of a coronal magnetic loop from the interaction between a convective flow of partially ionized plasma and the magnetic field of the loop. Such a situation can take place when the loop footpoints are at the nodes of several supergranulation cells. In this case, the neutral component of the converging convective flows entrain electrons and ions in different ways, because these are magnetized differently. As a result, a charge separating electric field emerges at the loop footpoints, which can efficiently accelerate particles inside the magnetic loop under appropriate conditions. We consider two acceleration regimes: impulsive (as applied to simple loop flares) and pulsating (as applied to solar and stellar radio pulsations).We have calculated the fluxes of accelerated electrons and their characteristic energies. We discuss the role of the return current when dense beams of accelerated particles are injected into the corona. The results obtained are considered in light of the currently available data on the corpuscular radiation from solar flares.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/d32j212710843216/
“INTRODUCTION
Much of the energy in solar and stellar flares is released in the form of energetic particles. The bulk of the electrons and ions in impulsive solar flares are accelerated to energies of 100 keV and 100 MeV, respectively (Miller et al. 1997) and produce hard X-ray and gamma-ray line emission.”
Many of these “energetic particles” eventually interact with the Earth’s magnetosphere and potentially effect Earth’s energy balance, one expression of which is climate — In other words, the Sun’s over all energy level effects the Earth’s climate.
Is Dr. V. V. Zaitsev of the Institute of Applied Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, one of the “usual suspects pushing pseudo-science and nonsense”?

For those interested, here’s the monthly sunspot
counts from 1749 into 1995:
http://www.matpack.de/Info/Astronomy/Sunspots_Monthly.html
It’s my impression that the monthly counts before 1770
aren’t 100% reliable.
Safe and Happy Holidays too all !

Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Reconnection is observed in space and in the laboratory, e.g. [the Princeton website]”
http://mrx.pppl.gov/
But the Princeton website uses “frozen-in” magnetic fields in an infinitely conductive plasma as an a priori assumption, a false assumption, one that fails to describe space plasma or laboratory plasma.
From the Princeton website:
“In plasma physics, it is well known that magnetic field lines are “frozen-in” to an infinitely conductive plasma… this means that infinitely conductive plasmas will not diffuse across field lines and mix.”
This is a false statement.
In opposition, real space plasma and laboratory plasma has been repeatedly observed & measured to have resistivity, and, thus, can sustain an electric field, i.e., the V.V. Zaitsev paper linked to in my previous comment and numerous other peer-reviewed published papers.
This is the framework of the analysis & interpretation employed by scientists studying the Electric Double Layer process in laboratory plasma physics and space plasma physics.
The Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation employs formal mathematical equations which encompass & constrain all the forces and particles encountered in the plasma environment.
These astrophysicists subscribe to the Current Disruption Theory, which encompasses the Electric Double Layer process.
Dr. Svalgaard, why do you cite the Princeton website when the premise of its experiments does not reflect what plasma physicists have observed in nature, both in laboratory plasma and space plasma?
In regards to the Princeton experiments, how can a theoretical model which relies on an a priori assumption which doesn’t exist in nature, and, thus, is misleading because it fails to consider all the forces present in nature, i.e., electric fields, still be a valuble analytical tool for understanding how plasmas behave in nature?
Doesn’t Science want to understand plasma as it actually behaves in laboratory experiments and in space plasmas?

For heaven’s sake, I’m just a grade school teacher, a special ed one at that, and I get what Leif is saying. Not because of his posts, but by reading the contents of the links and books he has recommended.
A dose of discernment is needed here regarding science (and for some a larger dose). Yes, some of science stinks in the catastrophic warming writings, but that doesn’t mean all science stinks.

Pamela Gray, what your post demonstrates is a fair degree of a need for conformity and deference to authority. There is really nothing wrong with it, a majority of people is “built” or if you prefer, “wired”, that way. It is a social mechanism that has a social fitness value, if not a survival value in “interesting” times..
Once again, what science creates are models, approximations of reality, because the physical reality is not accessible to us directly. Unfortunately, this aspect of science is not stressed enough and hubris is the flip side then.
Leif,
It is a holiday time and my attention is thusly oriented where it should be during holidays. I’ll try to respond in the next few days with the CMEs details/sketch and also provide falsification data for the fusion/HR model–I think we may have about 3 cases that are the proverbial VY Canis Majoris holes in the standard edifice.
Just out of curiosity… if I have data that falsify the fusion/HR model, will you accept it? Or will you try to find proper epicycles so the model remains intact? Something tells me that you would go by the second route.