Readers may recall the contentious discussions that occurred on this thread a couple of weeks back. Both Willis Eschenbach and Dr. Leif Svalgaard were quite combative over the fact that the model data had not been released. But that aside, there is good news.
David Archibald writes in to tell us that the model has been released and that we can examine it. Links to the details follow.
While this is a very welcome update, from my viewpoint the timing of this could not be worse, given that a number of people including myself are in the middle of the ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas.
I have not looked at this model, but I’m passing it along for readers to examine themselves. Perhaps I and others will be able to get to it in a few days, but for now I’m passing it along without comment.
Archibald writes:
There is plenty to chew on. Being able to forecast turns in climate a decade in advance will have great commercial utility. To reiterate, the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:
David Evans has made his climate model available for download here.
The home for all things pertaining to the model is: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
UPDATE2:
For fairness and to promote a fuller understanding, here are some replies from Joanne Nova
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm
==================================
Thanks much. It will be interesting to see the differences.
I see main components that tie the two together, and then there are unique differences between the sets. It will take some time to get used to this. This will keep me occupied for a week or two.
Leif I know you don’t want to try any harder, because you are resting on your laurels. So now you are resorting to semantics to brush me off.
The solar wind “magnetic” field originates from the motion of electrons and protons, the motion of said particles itself creates an electric current, a fact also brought out numerous times. The concentration of charge within a local field is proportional to the amount and energy level of the charged particles within a local field, whether you’re talking about the Sun or the Earth, which is why we say the Earth has an electric field too – a global electric circuit that is influenced by solar activity in several ways.
There is no magnetic anything without charged particles in motion, even if it’s just electrons and protons spinning in place. The number of charged particles and their energy levels amount to the local electric field, with the overall electrical energy level measured in electron volts (eV) or volts. The magnetic field within that motion in that local field in the heliosphere is a combination of the particle field contributions from the solar wind, cosmic rays, and planetary particle emissions. You can’t change the laws of physics Leif to avoid the Sun’s electric field and all it’s ramifications. Good luck trying.
By the way, photon flux energy in the solar irradiance over the past decades caused “global” warming of a mere few tenths of a degree, proven with electromagnetic laws of physics. By the same principle, lack of photon flux energy as compared to today’s levels caused the little ice age when sunspot numbers were low or non-existent for a long time, a sign of low F10.7 flux and low solar electric field strength, and lower irradiance and luminosity (brightness).
Has anybody noticed how much brighter the sun has been for the past ten days or so while solar flux has been higher? Several people mentioned this to me without any prompting.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:33 pm
The solar wind “magnetic” field originates from the motion of electrons and protons, the motion of said particles itself creates an electric current
Not at all, the electrons and protons move together [as they attract each other so strongly] so there is no net current and hence no magnetic field from that. The solar wind flows simply because the corona is so hot that the particles move with speed higher than the escape velocity. The solar wind is neutral [as Lindeman showed already in 1919]. Its electrical conductivity is so high [essentially infinite] that the magnetic field in the corona becomes ‘frozen into’ the expanding solar wind plasma and is thus carried out into the solar system. That is where the magnetic field comes from, and it is still connected to the sun all the way out to 100 AU as measured by the Voyager spacecraft. You have this electric field – magnetic field exactly backwards. As you said, I was one of the pioneers in this field and our knowledge has grown enormously since the 1970 when all this was figured out, but the physics has not changed. It is as I tell you.
The end of sham science is near:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-11/number-us-firms-willing-trade-chinese-yuan-has-tripled-year
And food stamps, and public pensions, and roads sans potholes, etc.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Plasma neutrality is a side issue for one thing. The electric field of the sun is created by electrons and protons, as is the magnetic field. You are obfuscating the reality that charged particles in motion cause magnetic fields and that charged particles in concentration create electric fields. You are obfuscating the reality that concentrations of charged particles separated within flux tubes both on the Sun and in Earth’s local space environment have local electric fields that add in superposition just as the magnetic fields do.
You are making a big deal out of nothing – its a diversion from the main story here. Nothing you are saying to refute me changes the laws of physics that govern the electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic activity of the Sun’s plasma as I described, nor does it matter to any solar photon energy analysis.
Don’t you get it, plasma neutrality in the solar wind isn’t the issue. The issue is whether the photon energy output of the Sun varies enough to change temperatures here. Why don’t you tell me why that isn’t of interest to you?
Leif, what makes the conditions Biermann set down explaining the creation of magnetic fields from the motion of charged particles any different from the time of the supposed seed field creation and now? If the motion of particles created magnetic fields way back as Biermann said, why are you saying it doesn’t happen now the same way when all the evidence still supports magnetic fields being created by the motion of primarily electrons and protons? Explain please.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
lThe electric field of the sun is created by electrons and protons
The sun does not have an electric field.
The issue is whether the photon energy output of the Sun varies enough to change temperatures here.
If that is the issue why obfuscate it with babbling about the non-existing solar electric field? The ‘photon energy output’ is called TSI.
Why don’t you tell me why that isn’t of interest to you?
TSI is of great interest to me, and its variations change the temperature on the order of 0.1 degree.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:34 pm
If the motion of particles created magnetic fields way back as Biermann said, why are you saying it doesn’t happen now the same way
If you would care to even look at the Biermann link I gave you, you would find [on slide 11] that it would take the Biermann process 100,000 years to generate a magnetic field of 10^(-19) Gauss which is 10,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than that of an average sunspot. That is why the process is not a factor anymore.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
The electric field of the sun is created by electrons and protons
An electric field created by a charge separation of protons and electrons would short out immediately because the electrical conductivity of the plasma is very high. You need an ongoing process to maintain the electric field, to continue to separate the charges. What would that process be? If you have an existing magnetic field, then you could separate the charges by shooting the plasma beam though the magnetic field which would deflect protons one way and electron in the opposite direction. This is what happens when the solar wind meets the magnetic field of the Earth. But without the magnetic field you get no charge separation and hence no electric field. Bottom line: everything interesting is caused by electric currents that are generated by plasma moving across magnetic fields. No magnetic fields, no currents.
Isn’t the light of the Sun directly caused by the Sun, Leif?
The sunlight – solar radiance – is characterized by its electric field by definition, by the electromagnetic laws of physics. Look it up. You are arguing against Maxwell here, not me.
Do you really think the definition for irradiance that includes proportionality with the electric field produced by solar activity is wrong? Do you really think that professionals in the solar cell industry are wrong when they use solar flux calculations in their power system designs that are explicitly relate the electric field strength of sunlight and the photoelectric effect output of solar cells?
What you seem to be trying to do is declare the electromagnetic energy in sunlight has nothing to do with the Sun’s magnetic state, and also deny every photometric and radiometic measure developed through history that relates the photon flux generated in the Sun’s radiant output – in it’s light – to the electric field of that SUN light. The Sun’s photon flux at every wavelength that comprises TSI is a function of that electric field, you can’t change that. Solar radiance, sunshine, sunlight, is caused by the acceleration of charged particles, you can’t change that, and that light is defined as a function of the electric field that you don’t want to talk about.
Referring back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance , I believe it might have been clearer for wiki to define E as the complex amplitude of the wave’s ELECTROMAGNETIC field, but considering that irradiance can also be defined as the time average of the component of the Poynting vector perpendicular to the surface, which is the cross product of the electric and magnetic fields, you really can’t escape that electric field component, can you?
I hope you can live with that Dr. Svalgaard, because you can’t change those things unless you go about reconstructing the laws of physics to suit your need to avoid using the word “electric”.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm
The sunlight – solar radiance – is characterized by its electric field by definition
Yes, the elctric field of the light, but that is not the electric field of the Sun.
The Sun’s photon flux at every wavelength that comprises TSI is a function of that electric field, you can’t change that
The electric field of the light, not of the Sun.
Solar radiance, sunshine, sunlight, is caused by the acceleration of charged particles
Actually not. Light is emitted when an electron jumps from an higher orbit to a lower orbit around the nucleus. Has nothing to do with acceleration of charged particles as that term is usually understood.
Leif is surfing.
Leif, light is caused by either acceleration or deceleration of charged particles, typically electrons:
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light , also see ‘Cyclotron radiation’, ‘synchrotron radiation’, and ‘Bremsstrahlung’ on wikipedia, respectively:
“Cyclotron radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by moving charged particles deflected by a magnetic field. The Lorentz force on the particles acts perpendicular to both the magnetic field lines and the particles’ motion through them, creating an acceleration of charged particles that causes them to emit radiation as a result of the acceleration they undergo as they spiral around the lines of the magnetic field.”
“The electromagnetic radiation emitted when charged particles are accelerated radially is called synchrotron radiation.”
“Bremsstrahlung (German pronunciation: [ˈbʁɛmsˌʃtʁaːlʊŋ] ( listen), from bremsen “to brake” and Strahlung “radiation”, i.e. “braking radiation” or “deceleration radiation”) is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron by an atomic nucleus. The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy. The term is also used to refer to the process of producing the radiation. Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the accelerated particles increases.”
You can’t change that no matter how hard you try.
Qouting you quoting me when I said “Solar radiance, sunshine, sunlight, is caused by the acceleration of charged particles” –
Where you said
“Actually not. Light is emitted when an electron jumps from an higher orbit to a lower orbit around the nucleus. Has nothing to do with acceleration of charged particles as that term is usually understood.”
…. Has nothing to do with acceleration of charged particles …. yea, right….
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:03 am
Leif, light is caused by either acceleration or deceleration of charged particles, typically electrons: Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light , also see ‘Cyclotron radiation’, ‘synchrotron radiation’, and ‘Bremsstrahlung’ on wikipedia, respectively:
Acceleration of a charged particle can,, indeed, give rise to emission of light, but we were discussing sunlight, which is not like the examples you found on wikipedia.
Leif, Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_heat
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, interatomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.
Examples of thermal radiation include the visible light and infrared light emitted by an incandescent light bulb, the infrared radiation emitted by animals and detectable with an infrared camera, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Thermal radiation is different from thermal convection and thermal conduction—a person near a raging bonfire feels radiant heating from the fire, even if the surrounding air is very cold.
Sunlight is part of thermal radiation generated by the hot plasma of the Sun.”
This is the good part: “This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation”
So it looks like charge-acceleration does the job after-all!
Back at ya Leif! have a good one, it’s been great, it’s way past my bedtime.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:31 am
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter.
Sunlight is not produced that way, and in any case, the particles are not accelerated in an electric field of the sun. Here is a [somewhat lengthy] description of the process of producing light http://staff.on.br/jlkm/astron2e/AT_MEDIA/CH04/CHAP04AT.HTM
Instead of reading it all you might just search [in vain] for ‘acceleration’
Talk about splitting hairs. Solar activity does control our climate and so does its orbit and length of sunshine. The latter being the more north or south you are from the equator, winter is almost sunless and we get lands of the midnight sun. What creates it is – If the sun donna shine it is colder than when it does. Gee this website is getting argumentative for the wrong reasons.
It’s time to say no to this not-even-wrong theory, culture war and all being played against us, except for those who wish to commit intellectual suicide in some tribal quest to support insanity just because a former ally has turned into a clown.
bushbunny says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:20 am
“Talk about splitting hairs. Solar activity does control our climate and so does its orbit and length of sunshine. The latter being the more north or south you are from the equator, winter is almost sunless and we get lands of the midnight sun. What creates it is – If the sun donna shine it is colder than when it does. Gee this website is getting argumentative for the wrong reasons.”
—————————————————————————————————————————
I believe you are addressing insolation not solar output. The difference is not splitting hairs. It is what confuses many people. Right now on the central west coast of Florida it is 7:38 and the Sun has just risen. It is humid but not very hot. In a few hours the temperature will rise but that is not due to any change in the output of the Sun. It is an insolation change. Later when the clouds and thunderstorms move in it will cool. But once again that is an insolation change not a change in the output of the Sun. Insolation controls climate.
To investigate the 2011 Arctic ozone loss, scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Spain) analyzed a comprehensive set of measurements. These included daily global observations of trace gases and clouds from NASA’s Aura and CALIPSO spacecraft; ozone measured by instrumented balloons; meteorological data and atmospheric models. The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss. Further studies are needed to determine what factors caused the cold period to last so long.
“Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters,” said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. “The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic20111002.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2014.gif
Leif and Bob, I much appreciated your back and forth discussion. It opened a window onto the solar process that has been difficult for me to understand, a mere mortal, when there has been no decently presented alternate view. Until now that is. Bob’s view is clearly educated, though apparently wrong on important details. Having read Leif’s peer-reviewed work (most of which was muddy to me due to my lack of the necessary academic background in this subject), I will have to side with Leif. However, due to this current back and forth, I am a bit more educated and some of Leif’s articles are now clearer to me. So thanks.
Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:00 am
Leif and Bob, I much appreciated your back and forth discussion. It opened a window onto the solar process that has been difficult for me to understand
And that is the whole purpose of continuing so far.
ren says: July 12, 2014 at 6:35 am
[“]To investigate the 2011 Arctic ozone loss, scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Spain) analyzed a comprehensive set of measurements.[“]
ren, you are quoting in your first paragraph. If you are quoting someone else’s written introduction to the abstract, please site the source and use quotation marks.
“How the solar wind is formed and powered has been the subject of debate for decades. Powerful magnetic Alfvén waves in the electrically charged gas near the sun have always been a leading candidate as a force in the formation of solar wind since Alfvén waves in principle can transfer energy from the sun’s surface up through its atmosphere, or corona, into the solar wind.
In the solar atmosphere, Alfvén waves are created when convective motions and sound waves push magnetic fields around, or when dynamic processes create electrical currents that allow the magnetic fields to change shape or reconnect.”
“Until now, Alfvén waves have been impossible to observe because of limited resolution of available instruments,” said Alexei Pevtsov, Hinode program scientist, NASA Headquarters, Washington. “With the help of Hinode, we are now able to see direct evidence of Alfvén waves, which will help us unravel the mystery of how the solar wind is powered.”
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/dec/HQ_07264_Hinode_Waves.html#.U8FGm1V_sup
Bob Weber, past history as already PROVEN our case to be correct. This is why I am not going to hold conversations on a subject that already is closed which is solar variability controls the climate.
The solar variability is greater then what mainstream keeps trying to say but more importantly it is the secondary effects which really matter.
Notice how there is yet to be a temperature graph produced which shows the range of global temperatures INCREASING during a prolonged solar minimum period or the range in global temperatures DECLINING during a period of prolonged maximum solar activity.
Guess what the same thing is going to happen once again going forward into this decade. Global temperatures will be falling in response to weak solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.
I would bet my last dollar that if my solar criteria is approached never mind met that the climate will respond. I am very confident in my position probably more now then ever.