h/t Benny Peiser – the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
The abstract of the study;
The past few decades have been characterized by a period of relatively high solar activity. However, the recent prolonged solar minimum and subsequent weak solar cycle 24 have led to suggestions that the grand solar maximum may be at an end. Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.
Read more: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html
Naturally the MET thinks that anthropogenic forcing will overwhelm the cooling effect. In the context of farcical model predictions of anthropogenic warming of up to +6.6c by 2100, which the MET still officially treats as serious science, a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.
Nevertheless, the fact the MET have raised the risk of significant global cooling from their 8% estimate, produced in 2010, to 15 – 20% is intriguing. The MET assures us however, that any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.
Perhaps the science is not as settled, as some politicians have been led to believe.
Climategate Email 0700.txt
… Communications between scientists and politicians are becoming more and more important and the scientific population must be large enough to be visible. D Raynaud commented that the work by Stocker in 1997 on the gross rate of emissions and the change in thermo circulation is important to conferences such as Kyoto. K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time
A Ghazi pointed out that the funding is set once the politicians want the research to be done. We need to make them understand that we do not understand the climate system. …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Even indoctrinated closed shut eyes react to sunlight.
Most certainly we are in the Ice Ages. And it is obvious statistically that we are nearing the end of this balmy period.
I’d like to experience the Maunder Minimum like event, but me living that long is an extremely unlikely event.
Au contraire littlepeaks – I suggest you would NOT like to experience a Maunder Minimum event.
A multitude of elderly people will NOT survive a major global cooling event like the Maunder.
Even in these balmy days of alleged global warming, Excess Winter Deaths are approximately 10,000 per year in Canada, up to 50,000 per year in the UK and about 100,000 per year in the USA. Cold weather kills many more people than hot weather, even in warm climates.
My friend Joe D’Aleo and I published this paper online on Monday May 25, 2015.
Winters not Summers Increase Mortality and Stress the Economy
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/24/winters-not-summers-increase-mortality-and-stress-the-economy/
Joe is a veteran meteorologist and was founding Chief Meteorologist of the Weather Channel.
Joe and his colleagues have correctly long-range-forecasted the last two very cold winters in the eastern two-thirds of North America. Both Environment Canada and the US National Weather Service (NWS) incorrectly predicted warmer-than-average winters two years in a row.
We warned the USA and Canadian governments of this dangerous situation in the Fall of 2014. This past winter, the lower-48 USA (CONUS) required about 8-9% more energy than the NWS forecast predicted. Fortunately, energy supplies were generally adequate.
Cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of modern society – it IS that simple.
Best, Allan
Alan I have often stated this, “Cheap, reliable, abundant energy is the lifeblood of EVERY economy.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2004/kara-jpo-2004.pdf
Pam, it suggest solar plays a big part in this as well..
No it does not. For the purposes of ocean warming at the depth of solar penetration, a constant solar value suffices because turbidity is the stronger issue.
Turbidity is interesting as it requires something to add the particles to the ocean and something to create the currents that carry the turbid water until it settles. So what causes the turbidity in the first place? I would think that the greatest cause is rain and erosion of soils so severe flooding or monsoon rains on mountains, or even continual rain result in turbid river water carrying the turbidity out into the ocean. But that actually does not go too far.
So the weather causes the turbidity close to the coasts like the Mississippi run off that initially caused the barrier islands but now it is canalized the turbidity from the Mississippi is carried out into the Gulf of Mexico for a few miles where it drops into the deeper waters.
Is there any evidence for turbidity of the top 700m of ocean in the Atlantic or Pacific away from the coasts?
If not then Salvadore wins this round.
Pam, my point is that solar is playing a role in every process you mention to one degree or another . I did not say necessarily the dominate role. Maybe it is just a catalyst that gives that slight difference which winds up making all of the difference due to the chaotic ,random nature of the climate system..
Pam , I would be interested if you were to formulate a comprehensive paper which talks about why and how the climate changes due to earth intrinsic changes in the absence of any input from solar and CO2.
Then you should explain to us what would be the physical mechanisms behind the changes and how would a change which started in a particular direction not only stop going in the same direction once it got started but actually reverse. How did the Younger Dryas start , then lasting period of time of some 1000 years only to have an abrupt ending which ties into solely to earth intrinsic changes? What was the driving mechanism or mechanisms that made this possible?
Also I think you are of the opinion that the climate is going to get cooler going forward. What is the mechanism behind that? Do you think it is just a complete chaotic ,random explanation? If you do I say that is very poor explanation due to the semi cyclic nature the climate exhibits which highly suggest something is regulating it which goes beyond randomness and chaotic happenings.
Also you would need to produce data from the historical climatic record which would show how earth intrinsic changes in the absence of any outside influences correlates to your theory.
All of the above Pam I have accomplished. You may not agree but you can not prove me wrong..
So why don’t you do what I suggest, if it is convincing enough maybe you will change some minds but till then the best theory for why the climate changes is the solar/climate connection argument which the data DOES support.
The salt and just the cresting waves can also cause turbidity. That would involve wind, not particles, and saltier versus less saltier seas.
I am not certain we can more then speculate here. Plankton blooms, aided by initial lack of turbidity allowing insolation through the Epipelagic Zone – from the surface to 200 meters (656 feet), can then limit the solar penetration depth of this zone. However when they die the release their energy. I have seen a five foot deep compost pile get extremely hot. The ocean “snow” falling decomposing organic matter, can become very deep on the ocean floor, and this heat is then ultimately only transported deeper. The turbidity in this zone is in general very low in the deep tropics.
. It is also known as the sunlight zone because this is where most of the visible light exists. With the light come heat. This heat is responsible for the wide range of temperatures that occur in this zone.
Below the epipelagic zone is the mesopelagic zone, extending from 200 meters (656 feet) to 1000 meters (3281 feet). The mesopelagic zone is sometimes referred to as the twilight zone or the midwater zone. The light that penetrates to this depth is extremely faint. It is in this zone that we begin to see the twinkling lights of bioluminescent creatures. A great diversity of strange and bizarre fishes can be found here.
As already mentioned we simply do not know the mean solar insolation flux at this level on any long term historic basis, nor do we know the disparate residence time of different W/L insolation, nor do we know the historic flux of changing solar W/L at the surface. However we do not that the residence time of this energy is very long, hundreds to thousands of times longer then the majority of the atmospheric energy increase due to a change in GHG concentration.
Of course, just as our earth moves tropical atmospheric heat to polar regions, and up and out, so our earth moves ocean heat pole ward. Mechanism for this heat to move to depth do I suppose exist, and certainly the CAGW scientist think so.
Heat is a curious thing. In general it is described as an average on the kinetic energy of a given mass, such as one square meter. But this average, does not define the “energy intensity” of individual molecules or photons which composed said mass. A thought experiment if you will. Take a very large pot filled with water, say 100 square feet in area, and ten feet deep, so 1000 square feet. and super insolated with a concave bottom, thinner in the center.
Now apply two different heat sources to this pot, both of which are say 100 watts per 1 square feet. The first source, example A, is a 100 square foot heating element, 10,000 watts total, with the conducted heat perfectly distributed throughout. From this source, no matter how perfect the insolation of the pot of water, it can only get to the T of the heating element, at which point the net flow between the element and the pot will be equal.
Now apply a very different 100 watts per square foot source; example B. Apply a very small, say 1/4 inch square super heated 10,000 watts total, but still 100 watts per square foot of the pot base. Given time, this greater energy intensity source of equal watts per square foot input to example A, can yet heat the pot of water to far higher Temperature. Under theoretical perfect insolation, the entire pot can reach the T of the source.
Comparing an atmospheric flux in GHG LWIR to the energy intense SW flux striking a SW selective surface like the oceans, is like the example A verses B above. The watts per square meter flux is almost meaningless compared to the greater energy intensity of the SW flux and the thousands of times greater residence time of said SW flux striking the SW selective surface of the oceans, verses the very short residence time change in atmospheric energy due to increased GHG which also are far less energy intensive then the SW radiation penetrating the oceans. (Some of Konrad’s experiments may be useful here)
Due to the very long residence time of SW ocean insolation, and to the relatively higher energy intensity of SW insolation verses LWIR, then a 100 year long flux in SW insolation, can accumulate for every one of those 100 years, whereas the direct affects of a change in GHG LWIR, reaches a radiative balance tomorrow.. Indeed, not all watts are equal.
Time for a lot of folks to admit we have no idea what we are living through, is this (our miniscule period) benign, warm, cool or indifferent, we have no idea we are simply transient learners!
Those that “know” are to me a new and destined to be a short lived species of “home superbus” – arrogant man.
I think based on the history of converting “global cooling” to “global warming” and then to “climate change” and then “climate chaos” – all caused by anthropogenic co2 – it would be quite easy to convert to “global cooling” again. Caused by anthropogenic CO2 of course.
Maybe we could name this “The Pachauri Cycle” or may be the “Mann Cycle”
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
It doesn’t matter what you call it. It doesn’t matter if it gets colder or warmer. It doesn’t matter if it gets wetter or drier. It doesn’t matter if we have more storms or fewer of them. It’s climate change and it’s CO2’s fault. We need taxes, carbon credits, renewals, and ponzi schemes to make the elites even wealthier.
How about the “Piltdown Mann Cycle”?
Whadddya mean we don’t have good climate models yet? Here is the best one: big ball of fire rises in the sky; global warming (well at least 30% or so); big ball of fire goes away, global cooling. The refined model takes that linear model, adds 200 or so first or second order variables, plus a few discreet functions and voila! A perfectly useless model unless equipped with govt grants.
Why is anyone even discussing this? There was no decline in solar activity in the last ice age. Just ask Leif – they’re adjusting those sunspot numbers as we speak.
Phil, if you really wish to mess with “Leif” I suggest you read or at least became familier with his published papers. Also after that, if you still wish to continue, I really, really recommend Sun Tzu -The art of war.
best of luck..
michael
🙂
Hmm,, Has anyone thought of the impact of this Paris Regala in the middle of snow storms & blizzards?
Not perhaps in Paris but across the world, grounding aircraft. “Can’t Get thar from hare” (Mainer talk”)
Perhaps they ran the models with the real truthful imputs: and the computer sputtered, laughted and printed out ” you are sooo sc***ed!” You never know, and urban legends are fun to start. Okay Me Bad
michael
Eric Worral.
“a degree or so of cooling, due to a lull in solar activity, might not seem a big deal.”
Please provide a reference for the “degree or so of cooling” you state in your article. I do not see it myself. I assume you mean Celsius.
Headline:
“UK MET Office: Fastest decline in solar activity since the last ice age”
We have never left the Ice Age, we are in an Interglacial Period of an Ice Age.
old44.
Semantics. You can go look up the correct technical terminology if you like. But is does not change what the UK Met Office said.
If solar activity is plummeting at the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years, then surely this proves that such a change is anthropogenic. How could it possibly happen otherwise? And if anthropogenic, then it must be assumed to be a result of increased CO2. The only thing left for scientists to do is to intuit the exact mechanism by which our carbon pollution or other activity is causing the sun to reduce its activity. The link to CO2 is still a bit tenuous, of course, but other theories include solar despair at man’s folly and the Koch brothers launching a secret space program to dim the sun. Leading scientific journals will no doubt explain in good time.
Won’t the team be able to forever claim that once whatever may cause some cooling shifts diminishes we’ll be screwed because of all the CO2 we pumped into the atmosphere?
It can be any amount of years int eh future and the alarm stays ringing.
it’s all about the net. if Earth had the cloud cover of Venus, it would have an effective emission equivalent to only around 180 Kelvins or less for radiative balance. Earth’s albedo of around 0.3 is mostly due to our cloud cover, not the surface. whatever affects the albedo (mostly clouds) has a serious effect on Earth’s temperature and whatever does not affect the albedo has very little effect.
Yeah, and if the sun controls, it’s probably through manipulation of the albedo.
======
the Sun is rather stable presently, slowly increasing overall insolation intensity. It does have some variation and does manipulate albedo to some extent. The problem is that so does everything else. particulates from volcanoes and just dust blown up into the air along with smoke have direct effects plus they have effects on cloud seeding and the nature of the typical size of cloud droplets. it would also appear that bacteria in the air can have an effect on this. cloud albedo does depend upon these particulates that define the droplet size. whether it will be possible to untangle the giant knot of string that is cloud albedo and identify and measure the individual threads seems impossible. Then there is the contribution of the surface which is also dynamic. LOL. Despite the fact that the physics involved is nice, classical, and deterministic, when placed in Earth’s system of interactions and interdependence, the result is totally chaotic and co2 is purely a bit player whose actual contributions may not be measureable when it comes to effect on temperature.
Earlier this month Nir Shaviv gave a talk in Calgary – his slides are posted here:
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Calgary-Solar-Climate_Cp.pdf
See Slide 35 – essentially Svensmark et al.
I’m impressed by Nir Shaviv and Svensmark and Lindzen.
tnx for the slide ref. will try to read later. i’m sure it’s good.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/blind-faith-in-climate-models/#comment-1462890
An Open Letter to Baroness Verma
“All of the climate models and policy-relevant pathways of future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions considered in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent Fifth Assessment Report show a long-term global increase in temperature during the 21st century is expected. In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”.
– Baroness Verma
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 back-to-back low Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/image/annual.gif
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/data/download.html
The Dalton Minimum had 2 back-to-back low SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET).
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well.
The warmest recent years for CET were 2002 to 2007 inclusive that averaged 10.55C.
I suggest with confidence that 10.5C is substantially warmer as a yearly average than 8.5C, and the latter may not provide a “lovely year for Chrysanths”.
I further suggest with confidence that individual years averaging 7.8C or even 6.8C are even colder, and the Chrysanths will suffer.
So here is my real concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, Baroness Verma, then you and your colleagues on both sides of the House may have brewed the perfect storm.
You are claiming that global cooling will NOT happen, AND you have crippled your energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected “green energy” schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Britain will get colder.
I also suggest that the IPCC and the Met Office have NO track record of successful prediction (or “projection”) of global temperature and thus have no scientific credibility.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the UK as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality, the British rate of which is about double the rate in the Scandinavian countries, should provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae
Turning and tuning in the widening gyre,
the falcon cannot hear the falconer…
– Yeats
What does it matter now if men believe or no?
What is to come will come. And soon you too will stand aside,
To murmur in pity that my words were true
(Cassandra, in Agamemnon by Aeschylus)
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
This can be a worse than they think, because only AMO will reduce the temperature by about 0.4 degrees C. In turn PDO in the Pacific is entering a phase positive.
Do we wrote about the cooling of the North Atlantic?
The decrease AMO?
In low sun, it is important magnetic field of the earth, because it modifies the galactic radiation.
“Numerous studies have identified links between past climate and solar variability42, 43. During the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), very few sunspots were seen despite regular observations44. If the past relationships between TSI and ultraviolet irradiance and sunspots are the same as are observed for modern solar variability, then a decline in both TSI and ultraviolet for this period can be assumed. The Maunder Minimum coincided with more severe winters in the UK and continental Europe32 and many reconstructions45, 46 suggest atmospheric conditions were broadly comparable with the regional effects on European atmospheric circulation found here. Some modelling studies13, 47 also support the idea that similar regional cooling and circulation changes occurred during this period.”
In reply to:
William,
Leif, you are repeating an incorrect urban legend, that asserts incorrectly that there is some mysterious force that is expanding space. That is silly or to use your idiom which I dislike as it distracts from the scientific issues ‘muddled nonsense’.
P.S. There will be significant observational evidence of cooling and of an abrupt change to the sun to discuss. It is helpful in science if you want to be part of a breakthrough to be capable of considering/having more than one theory in your head. Many people in the scientific community cannot even accept the possibility that long held theories can be completely incorrect. As I noted there are currently an astonishing number of astronomical observational and analysis paradoxes that are directly and indirectly related to what is currently happening to the sun. There are paradoxes and anomalies associated with every logic pillar of the big bang theory.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601171v2.pdf
The scientific issue which is different than name calling is there are hundreds of observations that support the assertion that the majority of the redshift of quasars, redshift of some stars, and a portion of the redshift of galaxies is due to non velocity reasons.
The fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation means quasars are not astronomically highly distant objects (less than z=1). The majority of the redshift of quasars is due to massive charge imbalance which explains how the quasar redshift can and does change with time.
There are strings of ejected baby quasars stretching out from the axis of the parent quasar, AGN in both directions. The redshift of the newly ejected baby quasars gets progressively less as they move away from the parent AGN. As the new baby quasars move farther from the AGN they develop into companion galaxies.
There must be and is a physical reason for the non velocity redshift of quasars, galaxies, and some stars and there must be a physical reason for the glacial/interglacial cycle and cyclic abrupt climate change. The reason is due to the physics of what happens when large bodies collapse. This phenomena affects our star and is the reason for abrupt climate change.
http://phys.org/news190027752.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0143v1
Nothing is infinite except the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not so sure about the universe.
-Albert Einstein
There must be and is a physical reason for the non velocity redshift of quasars, galaxies, and some stars and there must be a physical reason for the glacial/interglacial cycle and cyclic abrupt climate change. The reason is due to the physics of what happens when large bodies collapse. This phenomena affects our star and is the reason for abrupt climate change
Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
(Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens)
Friedrich von Schiller
Global cooling will probably become obvious within a few years – we’ll see.
If this happens, we can expect that the warmists will move seamlessly to become coolists, and a significant number of the masses will blindly follow them.
George Carlin explained this phenomenon. He said:
“You know how stupid the average person is, right? Well, half of them are stupider than that!”
All this will happen notwithstanding that the warmists’ global warming hypothesis will be proved wrong, and their predictive track record will be utterly destroyed (even more than it already is quashed by “the Pause”).
Repeating, one’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s scientific competence.
To date, every major dire prediction by the IPCC and the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize.
Regards, Allan
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.3595v1.pdf
“These measurements thus confirm the expansion hypothesis, while unambiguously excluding models that predict no time dilation”
“That these data provide a confirmation of the time dilation factor expected in an expanding universe should be of no surprise. […] The data presented here are unique in that they enable the most direct test of the 1/(1 + z) time-dilation hypothesis over a larger redshift range than has yet been performed. This hypothesis is favored beyond doubt over models that predict no time dilation.”
Yes. Supernova exhibit time dilation, which is the slowing down of processes due to their high velocity. The Super nova are moving at a high velocity as they are at very great distances from the earth observer.
TIME DILATION IN TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA SPECTRA AT HIGH REDSHIFT
Quasars on the other hand do not exhibit time dilation which is a paradox.
There are piles and piles of anomalies concerning quasars all of which support the assertion that the majority of the quasar redshift is caused by non-velocity reasons and that the quasar redshift changes with time.
The same non velocity cause of redshift is seen for galaxies (portion of the redshift) and for stars (small amount for stars however highly significant as there needs to be a charge imbalance to cause the redshift effect, there needs to be a change in the standard stellar model to create a charge imbalance, and even a small charge imbalance would have a very large effect on the earth)
Super Massive Black Hole Downsizing with Redshift Paradox
Another of the paradoxes of astronomy is the largest super massive black holes 10^9 solar masses in quasars are only found at high redshift. The mass of quasar super massive black hole is only 10^7 solar masses for quasars in the local universe. This is a paradox as there is no mechanism to reduce the mass of a super massive black hole.
The mass of the high redshift super massive black hole is determined by the redshift of the quasar and the measured luminosity at the earth. Due to the assumed super distance of the super high redshift quasars, the super distant quasars are assumed to be emitting more energy than a hundred of the most luminous galaxies in the local universe. This type of super high luminous quasar completely disappears (is not observed) for local quasars, in fact there is an unexplained gradual reduction in quasar luminosity with redshift. There is no mechanism to explain why quasar luminosity should downsize with redshift. This paradox goes away if highly redshift quasars are not super distance objects as their highly redshift spectrum is caused by a massive electrical charge imbalance.
Quasar spectrum does not show evolution of metallicity with redshift
The quasar spectrum of super high redshift quasars contains elements that are only found in old galaxies. There is no evolution of what is called metallicity (metallicity is the name astronomers have given for the amount of heavy elements in the spectrum of stars, galaxies, and quasars). As metallicity (the amount of heavy elements such as iron and oxygen) is known to increase with galaxy age and the most distant galaxies in the universe that contain quasars should be theoretically young, they should if there are truly distant have less heavy elements in the gas of the galaxy that contains the quasar and hence in the quasar spectrum. The super high redshift have more not less heavy elements in their spectrum. The complete lack of evolution of metallicity of quasar spectrum with redshift is a paradox. This paradox goes away if highly redshift quasars are not super distance and highly redshift spectrum is caused by a massive electrical charge imbalance.
Super Luminous Quasars and Quasar Luminosity evolution with redshift
The quasars at high redshift if we assume the redshift is due to velocity must be at very, very, great distance from the earth. The luminiousity of some of the high redshift quasars is hundreds of times more than the largest brightest galaxy in the local universe. There are no super luminous quasars in the local universe. Related to this paradox the quasar luminosity gradually is reduced with redshift. which supports the assertion that the majority of the redshift of quasars is due to non velocity reason.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3151v1
http://iopscience.iop.org/1674-4527/12/3/002
The mistake some people make is that the light variations of quasars are intrinsic to the quasars. It is much more likely that they reflect variations on their way to us, e.g. micro lensing.
Quasars are the cores of active galaxies and move [or not] with them. You are totally out of your depth here.
Leif,
that quasar variation is ‘mistakenly’ assumed to be intrinsic in textbooks as well. it is used as the argument for size of the quasar core. gravitational lensing of such things as einstein’s cross showing up in four different places surrounding the ‘lens’ was shown to be one quasar by these intrinsic variations happening to the four different images which have traveled slightly different paths the entire way. how are your microlensing events going to affect the light traveling these different paths on the very short term basis? granted that there are many regions this light travels through as indicated by the lyman alpha forest present on the spectrum but the evidence conflicts with the notion of rapid variation not being intrinsic.
Yes, there is debate and dissent on this. To measure time dilation [or the lack thereof] one needs to know what the intrinsic variation actually is. With supernovae this is known as the variation is the known decay rate of radioactive nickel-56. For quasars there is no known reference.
This paper by Rourke http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/paradigm/hawkins-time-dilation.pdf may cast some light on the matter. Rourke argues that there is no paradox, but a selection effect at work.
Leif,
Astley’s comment “Yes. Supernova exhibit time dilation, which is the slowing down of processes due to their high velocity. The Super nova are moving at a high velocity as they are at very great distances from the earth observer” would seem to imply that due to large distance space expansion velocity would be high. Recession due to expansion of space is not true velocity relative to time dilation as it is not velocity through space but velocity of space expansion and would not cause time dilation per the general theory of relativity. You did not note this or am I misunderstanding something?
Perhaps this will clear up some of the confusion [but we are drifting away from the Topic]:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/hawkins-time-dilation.pdf
Leif,
Thanks, interesting. Not sure what to make of it as there is evidently question about the sample in the paper. Not to be labor this any longer my point was relative to supernovae, not quasars, per Astley’s comment and since recession velocities, per red shift, have been observed in excess of c, expansion velocities are not a measure of velocity through space but of space itself, is still my understanding. Thanks again.
Leif,
looked at that paper briefly. rouke’s refs are only 4 and one is schield – evidently looking for proof of a MECO (didn’t have time to chase that one down). from what I recall – either one can have a MECO or a black hole and while I’ve found schield’s eternally collapsing objects (magnetic or not) to be quite interesting I don’t think they have any significant support currently and even if their paper indicates they’ve found one (MECO), there are probably still alternative explanations available to the status quo. I usually cringe when I see mathematicians doing physics – especially when they comment in their paper about being new to the scene like rourke. While I have not spent the time and effort to fully understand either rourke’s paper or hawkin’s, I get the feeling that one cannot actually determine the information. Energy emissions from a quasar (what is apparently a supermassive black hole actively feeding) are a variety of sources, heating from surrounding material orbiting as it is spiraling, collisions with more infalling material, collisions with ejected beam particles, synchrotron radiation, stuff that can vary from object to object along with the geometry of surrounding material. Of course there are similar things occurring with supernovae that causes variations as well, but the main decay curve beautifully matches nickel to cobalt to iron (all 56) and those decay times are fixed in a lab and subject to time dilation from motion. The if and when some extra blob of stuff decides to fall into a black hole (or at least release some energy to vary the quasar’s intrinsic brightness) may be subject to time dilation effects but not to knowing what that would be. Heck, even that blob in the milky way’s center that was supposed to feed the supermassive BH didn’t work as expected tossing all the observationists and theory folks into a tizzy as to why.
Yeah, the real problem is that there is no reference variation [like the radioactive decay] for quasar variations.
“any reprieve from global warming will be temporary – potentially leaving open the option of running global warming scares, in the midst of brutal little ice age style winters.”
The MET Office needs to read “Fallen Angels”, by Larry Niven and co. It is an excellent read, and accurately forecasts exactly these types of absurdities.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
The Meteorological Office appears to accept the basic essentials of my New Climate Model
Well that can’t be good news for you.
Any publication, any data set, any discussion anywhere is ALWAYS glorious support for Stephen’s Nobel-prize-worthy know-it-all model.
But it would be of some entertainment value to see a link to where MetOffice says that they accept Stephen’s model.
Tom,
It could be good news if they are trying to hedge their bets, as seems likely.
Leif,
Peevish as ever.
You evaded the request. Provide a link where the MetOffice says that they accept your ‘theory’.
I said they ‘appeared’ to accept the basic essentials of my model by which I mean that there is clear similarity between causes and effects.
I certainly don’t expect them to actually say it.
You’ll never get credit; it’s a plain fact of nature, obvious on the face of it.
============
the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years.
really so what was the rate of decline in 200 bc , well no one knows , partly there was hardly any knowledge in this area and no way to measure any decline .
It is basic stuff , you cannot make good value judgements on something that you have idea of its size , theory is fine but in practice that is really guesswork . This ‘better then nothing ‘ approach is typical of climate science , the irony is that it is only required in the first place because far from being ‘settled science’ in the manner it is claimed to be much of it is still based on the ‘better than nothing ‘ framework . Which in turn is why it keeps getting it wrong and hence the latest in a long line of excuses for ‘missing heat ‘
Well you all would have burned in Hell if it wasn’t for the Ice Age so count yourselves lucky this time round deniers!
“UK MET Office: Fastest decline in solar activity since the last ice age”
I know the Met Office ithas been around for quite a long time, but I didn’t know it was that old.
Been reading Leif’s contributions here for years. I have come to the conclusion that he studies the sun so closely because it shines out of his posterior orifice.
One can concentrate so much on one part of our global climate / energy scenario that the rest becomes ephemera, but that doesn’t make it less important, and nor does not understanding the parts you don’t look at. Being dismissive in such a regular manner over the years might make one seem aloof, or should that be a Leif…
Do you not read that he is also a meteorologist. Or is that to be despised as well?
I would suggest, having been an occasional visitor here that most likely “Being dismissive in such a regular manner over the years might ” is because there as so many dismissive and ignorant posts such as yours that have come his way. Just the usual contempt for knowledge that the average postership here has for anyone remotely associated with climate science.
There is never really any excuse for rudeness, and the level of juvenile squabble to which some of these threads descends really puts me off reading many of them, which is a pity because WUWT used to be better than that. People who would be perfectly civil (or perfectly cowardly) face to face seem to lose their manners on-line. We’re supposed to be adults, not schoolkids on Facebook.