Researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming.
From NASA GSFC: Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun’s total output, such a small fraction is still important. “Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth’s core) combined,” he says.
Of particular importance is the sun’s extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
Several researchers discussed how changes in the upper atmosphere can trickle down to Earth’s surface. There are many “top-down” pathways for the sun’s influence. For instance, Charles Jackman of the Goddard Space Flight Center described how nitrogen oxides (NOx) created by solar energetic particles and cosmic rays in the stratosphere could reduce ozone levels by a few percent. Because ozone absorbs UV radiation, less ozone means that more UV rays from the sun would reach Earth’s surface.
Isaac Held of NOAA took this one step further. He described how loss of ozone in the stratosphere could alter the dynamics of the atmosphere below it. “The cooling of the polar stratosphere associated with loss of ozone increases the horizontal temperature gradient near the tropopause,” he explains. “This alters the flux of angular momentum by mid-latitude eddies. [Angular momentum is important because] the angular momentum budget of the troposphere controls the surface westerlies.” In other words, solar activity felt in the upper atmosphere can, through a complicated series of influences, push surface storm tracks off course.
Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality. They relied on multi-step interactions between multiples layers of atmosphere and ocean, some relying on chemistry to get their work done, others leaning on thermodynamics or fluid physics. But just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it’s not real.
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, “there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific,” correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.
The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. “One of the mysteries regarding Earth’s climate system … is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific.” Using supercomputer models of climate, they show that not only “top-down” but also “bottom-up” mechanisms involving atmosphere-ocean interactions are required to amplify solar forcing at the surface of the Pacific.
In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.
Caspar Amman of NCAR noted in the report that “When Earth’s radiative balance is altered, as in the case of a chance in solar cycle forcing, not all locations are affected equally. The equatorial central Pacific is generally cooler, the runoff from rivers in Peru is reduced, and drier conditions affect the western USA.”
Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. “If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal.” This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years.
Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.
Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.
Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
In a concluding panel discussion, the researchers identified a number of possible next steps. Foremost among them was the deployment of a radiometric imager. Devices currently used to measure total solar irradiance (TSI) reduce the entire sun to a single number: the total luminosity summed over all latitudes, longitudes, and wavelengths. This integrated value becomes a solitary point in a time series tracking the sun’s output.
In fact, as Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., pointed out, the situation is more complex. The sun is not a featureless ball of uniform luminosity. Instead, the solar disk is dotted by the dark cores of sunspots and splashed with bright magnetic froth known as faculae. Radiometric imaging would, essentially, map the surface of the sun and reveal the contributions of each to the sun’s luminosity. Of particular interest are the faculae. While dark sunspots tend to vanish during solar minima, the bright faculae do not. This may be why paleoclimate records of sun-sensitive isotopes C-14 and Be-10 show a faint 11-year cycle at work even during the Maunder Minimum. A radiometric imager, deployed on some future space observatory, would allow researchers to develop the understanding they need to project the sun-climate link into a future of prolonged spotlessness.
Some attendees stressed the need to put sun-climate data in standard formats and make them widely available for multidisciplinary study. Because the mechanisms for the sun’s influence on climate are complicated, researchers from many fields will have to work together to successfully model them and compare competing results. Continued and improved collaboration between NASA, NOAA and the NSF are keys to this process.
Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.
Finally, many participants noted the difficulty in deciphering the sun-climate link from paleoclimate records such as tree rings and ice cores. Variations in Earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric circulation can affect the deposition of radioisotopes far more than actual solar activity. A better long-term record of the sun’s irradiance might be encoded in the rocks and sediments of the Moon or Mars. Studying other worlds might hold the key to our own.
The full report, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” is available from the National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13519.
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
See also the December Solar slump here
Stephen Rasey says:
January 14, 2013 at 11:42 am
Shall we agree to disagree?
Evidently.
Let’s go back to repeated observations by thousands of people for hundreds of years that the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa are an unexpectedly good geographic fit. Add in the geology and zoology of the continents. A lot of unexpected new data, entirely correct in hindsight, yet did it force the acceptance of Wegner’s Continental Drift? No.
But it fostered Hess’s. I doubt very much that he would have come up with his ideas, if not forced by that particular observation [and many others]. New, unexpected, surprising, puzzling data is what makes new theories necessary and force us to take a different tack. But, obviously you disagree.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 14, 2013 at 11:42 am
I do believe, however, that the magnetic stripes were essential to force the idea of Plate Tectonics into closed minds.
you make the implicit assumption that most scientists minds are closed. This is very wrong. Scientists are as open-minded as they come. An open, curious mind is a prerequisite for being a good scientist. That said, most scientists do not automatically subscribe to every harebrained idea that comes their way. Scientists are inherently a conservative lot, that want to see compelling, forceful data before accepting anything. But, again, we can disagree on this.
For Pete’s sake, Lief! The way you mis-represent what another writes…
Lief: An open, curious mind is a prerequisite for being a good scientist.
YOU are the one that said an “Open Mind has nothing to do with science” ! (LiefS 1/9 9:10 am)
Lief: you make the implicit assumption that most scientists minds are closed. I do not. Only that there are many with closed minds. The opposition to Wegener’s observations is an extreme case of close-mindedness. Opposition to his THEORY of drift was proper; there were many problems with continents plowing through the crust. But when they dismissed the mechanism of the theory, they implicitly dismissed the observations, too. “S. Am and Africa never connected — their shapes are a coincidence.” Peer pressure against anything like drift was high for far too long. Even the editor of the AAPG Bulletin was an opponent.
It should be obvious that I put the early adopters of Plate Tectonics (spreading and subduction before the words were coined) into the open mind category. Not just Hess, but hundreds of others. But as you say, there were some, not most, some scientists that had to be FORCED (your word, not mine) by the Zebra data in to acceptance of a New Theory.
Lief: New, unexpected, surprising, puzzling data is what makes new theories necessary and force us to take a different tack. But, obviously you disagree.
I disagree with the word “force” and the notion that new data is a prerequisite and the only path to New Theories.
If Hess was “forced by that particular observation” to adopt the New Theory, then why were not hundreds of open minded scientists simultaneously arriving at the same Theory? New Theories are a product of an open human mind, triggered by new data and other new Theories, shaped by existing data and experience. The differences in experiences are key.
The data does not force new theories on scientists. If they did, there were be no mistaken theories. If they did, adoption of New Theories would be almost instantaneous without debate. New Data did not force Heezen to pursue an expanding earth theory.
Lief: most scientists do not automatically subscribe to every harebrained idea that comes their way
Where have I hinted they do? Here is a quote from four days ago where I said no such thing:
REPLY: You might want to learn how to spell Leif’s name before dissing him – Anthony
Leif Svalgaard: What I’m saying is that UV changes linearly with the sunspot number, that we can [and have since 1722] keep track of UV, and that UV linearly tracks variation of TSI, hence whatever the climate effect from UV is can be monitored simply by monitoring the sunspot number.
The feature report disputes your claim that TSI and all of its components always change by the same factor. And it affirms the possibility that different parts of the climate have different (possibly nonlinear) responses to different components of TSI. Your conclusion ( hence whatever the climate effect from UV is can be monitored simply by monitoring the sunspot number. ) is not supported by the evidence, if for “UV” we substitute “all of the components of solar irradiation”, as I did when I first referred to the whole spectrum. OR if the change in UV affects the Earth’s response to the rest of the spectrum nonlinearly in UV and the other components.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 14, 2013 at 4:23 pm
“An open, curious mind is a prerequisite for being a good scientist.”
YOU are the one that said an “Open Mind has nothing to do with science”
Just having an open mind does not make you a scientist. Everybody breathes air, and breathing is a prerequisite for a scientist as well, but does not make you a scientist, either. You miss the difference between having an open mind and making a new theory. Note, I did not say that an open mind is a prerequisite for a new theory. Einstein was very close-minded in this opposition to quantum theory. Planck as well. So, one can be have an open mind and a closed mind at the same time, but for different things. And almost all scientists I know of [and that is many] have an open mind, but not all of them make great new theoretical discoveries, in fact, only a minute fraction do.
Only that there are many with closed minds.
Many? How many? Do you have a link to the numbers on this?
The opposition to Wegner’s observations is an extreme case of close-mindedness.
Do you have any evidence that all in the opposition [which was the vast majority – especially in America] were close-minded?
You just said that only some were close-minded, now you imply that the almost uniform opposition was because they were close-minded. Was everyone close-minded?
the Zebra data in to acceptance of a New Theory
The magnetic stripes were known in the 1950s, Hess explained them and three other pieces of data, some which have puzzled people for centuries. Theory follows data.
I disagree with the word “force” and the notion that new data is a prerequisite and the only path to New Theories.
You used that word yourself about how close-minded people were forced by the data to accept the theory. ‘only’ is a big word. How many new theories that overthrow past ones are not based on new data? 1%, 10%, 100%? What is your estimate? Back it up by suitable analysis, links, and data.
New Theories are a product of an open human mind, triggered by new data and other new Theories, shaped by existing data and experience. The differences in experiences are key.
New Theories are a product of human minds [open or not], triggered by new data and other new Theories, shaped by existing data and experience. The differences in experiences are key.
If they did, adoption of New Theories would be almost instantaneous without debate.
Plate Tectonics was adopted virtually overnight… The solar wind theory was adopted instantaneously once the data from the first interplanetary probe became available. And what prompted Parker to propose the solar wind theory? Observations of comet tails and of the hot million-degree corona.
New Theories are hatched and incubated in and between open minds.
This is a widely believed [but wrong] myth. They are the result of new, surprising, and puzzling data. It does not take an ‘open mind’ to go from there. Openness has nothing to do with it. What makes the difference is that there is a piece of data that needs explanation and scientists are good at [that is what they do] this. The explanation is not always right. In fact, most are wrong [open mind or not].
Matthew R Marler says:
January 14, 2013 at 4:31 pm
The feature report disputes your claim that TSI and all of its components always change by the same factor.
Sigh, once more [perhaps from a different angle will help]: TSI has the value it has because the Sun is 6000 degrees hot. If the Sun did not have a magnetic field, TSI would truly be the ‘solar constant’ [on human time scales]. The magnetic field increases TSU by about 1/1000. That tiny variation values linearly with the magnetic field. So does all the other variables as the magnetic field controls all the rest.
And it affirms the possibility that different parts of the climate have different (possibly nonlinear) responses to different components of TSI
When any one of those parts have a definite value, the climate may have a non-linear [or whatever] response, but the next time [perhaps a solar cycle later] that part has the same value, the climate will have the same response. These is no evidence for anything else.
What might vary is not the Sun’s influence but the longer (1000-2000 yr) [non-solar] fluctuations in climate on top of which the solar influence rides.
Thanks for all the replies Dr. S.
We have seen those sunspot cycle records going back 14,000 years, based on reconstructions of other data.
You are right about there being a ceiling and a floor over the period.
Doesn’t this also tell us what the background (Interstellar medium and magneticfield) have been? The variations in the solar cycle, length, strength is a reflection of the interstellar background.
We have learned recently that the background is not as homgenous as once believed. That smaller scale structures exist nearby (downwind).
We are now only beginning to “actually see” and collect data on of the nearby interstellar medium and magnetic field.
I know you have an open mind Dr. S.
Larger scale
1phobosgrunt says:
January 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
Doesn’t this also tell us what the background (Interstellar medium and magneticfield) have been? The variations in the solar cycle, length, strength is a reflection of the interstellar background.
I don’t think so, as the solar wind effectively screens the sun from such influence from outside the heliosphere. Variations of the interstellar properties [none have been firmly established] could vary the amount of cosmic rays that reach the inner solar system [and us], but not change the sun in any measurable ways.
Leif Svalgaard: So does all the other variables as the magnetic field controls all the rest.
So the possibilities outlined in the feature report are not possible, on your authority, for the reasons that you have stated.
My favorite words in climate science are “maybe”, “might be” and so on. You might be right, but I think your reasoning is full of holes.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 14, 2013 at 8:45 pm
So the possibilities outlined in the feature report are not possible, on your authority, for the reasons that you have stated.
The report is full of maybe, might be, could be. Many things might be, but, as the report states, none have been shown to be compelling. “Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that “lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.” Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers”.
First, my apologies to Dr. Svalgaard and Mr. Watts — stupid, close-minded, blind error in putting “I before e” in Leif’s name. You can look as something a dozen times, but that doesn’t overrule the dozen mistakes that burn it in.
On Closed minds, “How many? Do you have a link?” Well, you pointed out Einstein was close minded on quantum theory (odd, since he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect). And we agree that a lot of American geologists and geophysicists were slow to accept Plate Tectonics.
Do you have any evidence that all in the opposition….
This is an example of what I mean by misrepresention. I wrote “extreme case of close mindedness”, an outlier case, which could be 1/3, 1/2, 3/4 of the opposition, not necessarily “all”. It is also referring to the length of time that Wegener’s observations lay fallow, 20+ years. As for a link to opposition, the AAPG 1926 debate is a short summary.
The magnetic stripes were known in the 1950s
Do you have a link? Hess 1962 cites neither Mason or Raff. Lawrence Morley wrote a personal history (Google “The Zebra Pattern” earthref.org/ERDA/download:292/) where he shows the Riff 1961 GSA zebra map as a key point. From page 80 of the pdf:
‘only’ is a big word
Yes it is. It excludes all other possibilities. That’s why I disagreed with it. So I have to show at least one counter example. As for examples, at the small scale, I can go back to the analysis of the seismic cube. Interpret with one structural concept (such as a diapir), the next day apply a fault-bend fold. Two theories, on the same data to see which better fits. On a grand scale, how about Einstein’s Special Relativity? Lorentz get’s credit for the transformation equations. Einstein made a better theory as a synthesis.
They are the result of new, surprising, and puzzling data.
Agreed. Occasionally it is a synthesis.
It does not take an ‘open mind’ to go from there.
It does. “An open, curious mind is a prerequisite for being a good scientist.” – Leif S.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 14, 2013 at 9:18 pm
“The report is full of maybe, might be, could be. Many things might be, but, as the report states, none have been shown to be compelling.”
But this is exactly what we have now, as CS value pulled out of someone behind to make a simulator come up with the “right” number.
And while temperature trends are up( and I agree they are up), they torture the data to get it. Temperature is not linear across space, it has a feature called fronts, that’s as non-linear as you can get. Yet we homogenize (make up) data to compensate for inadequate sampling, and the idea that UHIE is a fraction of a degree effect is idiotic, and can be shown to be from a few degrees to a handful with a smartphone and a weather app just by switching local stations.
The critical temperature data is now much temps drop at night compared to how much they went up the day before, and there is no trend there, if there’s a co2 signal it’s unmeasurable, and a hand held IR thermometer pointed at a clear sky reads either over 600F or less than -40F, -40 is out to about 12.5u, about half way through the supposed IR band in question, but it takes days to cool a few hours of incoming energy from the Sun longer than 12.5u, and depending on the weather many days lose more temperature over night than they went up during the day, and in fact on low wind days of low humidity the temp can swing as much as 60F, 3 times the global average of ~18F. Water vapor/Clouds control temps, but the reason temperature trends are up is land use. Anyone who has a yard, doesn’t live in the city, and lives somewhere that get’s frost knows that you get frost on grass, trees, cars, but not driveways or streets, they don’t cool fast enough.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 15, 2013 at 1:21 am
an outlier case, which could be 1/3, 1/2, 3/4 of the opposition, not necessarily “all”.
So,you are claiming that ~half of scientists do not have an open mind, yet seem to agree with me that an open mind is a prerequisite for being a good scientist. The implication is that you think the other half are bad scientists. I think at least half of scientists would disagree with you on that.
“The magnetic stripes were known in the 1950s” Do you have a link?
“As more and more of the seafloor was mapped during the 1950s, the magnetic variations turned out not to be random or isolated occurrences, but instead revealed recognizable patterns”
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html#anchor10912731
“The discovery of magnetic striping naturally prompted more questions: How does the magnetic striping pattern form? And why are the stripes symmetrical around the crests of the mid-ocean ridges?”
I don’t have a more precise link at hand, perhaps you can find one for me. When I was a student [of geophysics] in the early 1960s the development of Plate Tectonics was Big News which was ardently followed, so I’m quite familiar with the background and historical basis.
Two theories, on the same data to see which better fits.
If there had been no data [seismic cube] to begin with, there would not have been the two theories. Data drives theory. That does not mean that the same data always points to just one theory. More data is needed, and eventually that new data will show the road to take.
On a grand scale, how about Einstein’s Special Relativity?
Was a solution to the puzzling observation that the speed of light was constant. No such data, no special relativity.
“It does not take an ‘open mind’ to go from there.”
It does.
Since all good scientists have open minds, that can be taken out of the equation. It is not the open mind that drive discoveries. We all have that. Experience, being in the right place at the right time, dumb luck, intellectual powers, access to new data, etc are the ingredients that forge theories from data, not the open mind that we all posses.
I have made quite a number of scientific discoveries and yet people describe me as close-minded. So, let me be the counterexample to your notion.
Leif Svalgaard: However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.
I don’t think anyone has disputed that. I have been disputing your Rutherford-like confident assertions that what remains to be learned can’t possibly be important in the climate debates.
Matthew R Marler says:
January 15, 2013 at 8:10 am
I don’t think anyone has disputed that. I have been disputing your Rutherford-like confident assertions that what remains to be learned can’t possibly be important in the climate debates.
Nothing here is black-and-white. What is important [to me at least – and what other measure can one have?] is whether what we have learned settles the question [e.g. ‘it is the Sun, Stupid’, or ‘the sky is falling – we are all gonna burn, or drown or …]. We have to go with what we have, not with what we might have, or possibly could have. Others will disagree [e.g. the precautionary principle], but that is their problem [or yours], not mine.
@LeifS 7:56 am: So, you are claiming that ~half of scientists do not have an open mind,
No, I hypothesize that scientists, even good scientists, do not have an open mind on every topic. Stochastically It follows on any given topic, some minds of good scientists are more open than others.
Normally that heterogeneity of minds would not slow scientific progress. Minds open to a topic will attract and quicken communication. There is probably some critical size that maximizes pace; too few and there is not enough spark, too many and there is too much friction and not enough ‘oxygen’.
However, if the close-mined on a topic clump in positions of power (Journal editor, reviewers, funding managers), it can slow down progress buy slowing communication and starving projects. I think the fallow period of Wegener’s observations falls into this category, although his death in 1930 is another undoubtable reason for Drift gaining little acceptance for 20 years. I read somewhere that Einstein once held up for many years in peer-review and consultation a six-dimensional treatment of General Relativity. I wish I could find again a link to that story, for if true, it was surely an injustice for Einstein to smother the author of a possible good theory that would compete with Einstein’s own.
But a more recent example, to name one, deals with Stein and O’Donnell (WUWT The Spectator on the Antarctic Ice Capades Feb 17, 2011. A parallel Spectator editorial contains:
@LeifS 7:56 am:I don’t have a more precise link at hand, perhaps you can find one for me.
The blockquote in my 1:21 am comment from Lawrence Morley (of Vine-Mathews-Morley theory) is good. Google docs link pdf
Oh wouldn’t it be interesting to see the rejection letters!
The Vine Sept 1963 Nature paper only showed his marine acquisition profiles with modeled mag susceptibility blocks, no zebra maps. The part that ties into spreading is a subtle 1.5 paragraphs midway in the paper.
Here is a biography of Scripts scientist Victor Vacquier: with interactions with Morley, Raff, and Mason. It claims that repeating anomaly profiles patterns were published by 1958. It strongly hints that the Raff 1961 is the earliest publication of the Zebra, but doesn’t reference it (because Vacquier wasn’t an author?)
Stephen Rasey says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:11 pm
No, I hypothesize that scientists, even good scientists, do not have an open mind on every topic. Stochastically It follows on any given topic, some minds of good scientists are more open than others.
I don’t think a mind wobbles in its openness. It is either open or not. It is like being pregnant, you either are or you are not. Science has nothing to do with the varying degrees of open mind you hypothesize. If one accepts anything it is usually because the case is strong enough to force acceptance [which is always preliminary]. But scientists are also people [although my wife has her doubts at times] and subject to the usual failings. Suppressing a paper in peer review is not a scientific deed, but a human failing, and is certainly not because of closed-mindedness. Being closed minded is excusable [you are what you are, so no sin], but suppressing a paper is a grave sin that cannot be excused. Again, it seems we disagree on that.
Stephen Rasey says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:32 pm
The blockquote in my 1:21 am comment from Lawrence Morley (of Vine-Mathews-Morley theory) is good.
Thanks for the links. They may be moot as it seems that Hess did not use the stripes or magnetic anomalies in developing his ideas, c.f. http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/Hess1962.pdf
There were enough puzzling data of other kinds to guide him.
but suppressing a paper is a grave sin that cannot be excused. Again, it seems we disagree on that.
Are you implying that I think it is excusable to suppress papers?
Stephen Rasey says:
January 15, 2013 at 10:59 pm
Are you implying that I think it is excusable to suppress papers?
If that act is due to a closed mind [which one is born with as part of one’s personality] then, of course, you can’t help it, so no sin and therefore excusable. If you do it for other reasons [wounded pride, general nastiness, agenda, lots of badness here…] then it is not excusable. I thought I made that clear enough.
LeifS 10:45pm: Suppressing a paper in peer review is not a scientific deed, but a human failing, and is certainly not because of closed-mindedness.
“Certainly”?
What about editorial rejection of papers? Morley’s Feb 1963 letter to Nature, for example. An editor must apply some judgment of the paper’s importance. Different editors with different experiences can make different decisions. They are all human. So maybe the difference is in the individual mind’s state of reception to an idea.
Then there is the “Accepted subject to Revision”.
When does that change from being a “scientific deed to improve the paper with unavoidable delay”
to a “Purgatory of assuaging the many demands of” an anonymous reviewer while keeping the author away from the limelight as long as possible”?
When does a reviewer/editor cross the line from scientific deed to grave sin?
Trick question, there is no line — it’s a big fuzzy gradient gray patch.
If this is so, does the “scientific deed”/”grave sin” concept hold up? (Rhetorical question.)
Stephen Rasey says:
January 15, 2013 at 11:53 pm
What about editorial rejection of papers? Morley’s Feb 1963 letter to Nature, for example. An editor must apply some judgment of the paper’s importance. Different editors with different experiences can make different decisions. They are all human. So maybe the difference is in the individual mind’s state of reception to an idea.
Much more likely to be due to other concerns,such as agenda, group-think, inexperience, malice, [all of which I have experienced with regard to my own papers], etc. You seem to think that when an editor rejects a paper, that he has a closed mind for that specific paper, but when he accepts a paper, he has an open mind for that particular paper. Such selective application of your open/closed paradigm strains credibility.
LeifS 10:49: Thanks for the links. They may be moot as it seems that Hess did not use the stripes or magnetic anomalies in developing his ideas, c.f.
It is how it seems. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/#comment-1198060>Rasey 1/14 11:42am)
Actually, I’d be surprised if Hess didn’t see or hear of early Raff, Mason, Vacquier profiles at ONR in 1959-1960. Then again, Hess didn’t write the 1963 Vine-Mathews-Morley “Zebra stripe” theory.
@LeifS: 12:09am You seem to think that when an editor rejects a paper, that he has a closed mind for that specific paper, but when he accepts a paper, he has an open mind for that particular paper.
There you go again…. not “specific paper”, but on that “topic” or “theory”.
Editors can and do properly reject specific papers because of the quality of presentation. Editors can and do properly reject papers because the topic is outside of the domain of the journal. Editors must accept or reject well written papers based upon some judgment about the importance of the topic and this is where openness of mind comes into play.
Much more likely to be due to other concerns ,such as agenda, group-think, inexperience, malice,
“Group-think” I put into the category of close-mindedness, almost by definition.
“Settled Science” when it is a manifestation of Group-think is close-mindedness, too.
An open, curious mind is a prerequisite for being a good scientist. -LeifS
A closed mind on some topics is essential for being a good scientist, too.
Some topics really are “Settled Science”.
For how many seconds will you or I tolerate the notion that:
F=ma is wrong?
That the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong?
In the spirit of “The Relativity of Wrong”, F=ma has this asterisk which says “stay far away from the speed of light or it gets complicated”. That said, I don’t think I need to be open minded about changes to F=ma. It’s a good enough theory and there are bigger fish to fry. If someone shows me data adjusting it, I’m closeminded enough to look for other explanations.
Life is too short to be open minded on every topic.
Proposed paper: “South America and Africa were once joined”
…1940s Editor to himself, “will that myth ever die?”
The trick is to know on which topics to leave the door open at least a crack. Fortunately, there are lots of scientists with different experiences with their own doors cracked open.