Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[sylas]

You still think that changes in the solar magnetic field and wind are negilible climate factors. Why?

As far as I can see, this is something you made up all by yourself, for reasons I still can only guess at, and without the benefit of any real comprehension of solar magnetic fields and solar wind, and also without the benefit of any indication anyone else thinks it matters.

There's far far too little energy involved to give any direct climate impact, and absolutely no reason whatever for thinking there is an indirect effect that could even be detected in the climate.

Cheers -- sylas

[Augustine2004]

You dismiss the coincidence of the Maunder Minimum and the near-spotlessness Sun? Why?

[sylas]

Not at all; you are the one that is failing to apply what the evidence of the Maunder Minimum would suggest!

Assuming that the Maunder minimum has some contribution to the cooler conditions a few centuries ago -- a reasonable assumption, which makes sense in the light of physics -- we should conclude that the solar cycle is not contributing to the current warming episode, because sunspots in the present are reduced from several decades ago. Hence (as I have already said) the solar forcing is negative for current conditions.

Furthermore, the cooling effect of the Maunder minimum is not because of solar wind or magnetic fields. The climate impact of the Maunder minimum, or more generally of solar changes during a times of reduced sunspots, arises because these are times with reduced radiant energy from the Sun. It makes makes perfectly good sense physically that this matters for climate. The radiant energy from the Sun is what matters for temperature on Earth. Not solar wind or magnetic fields!

You've got the correlations, and the physics, completely backwards here.

Frankly, The one who really ought to be answering WHY is you. YOU are proposing, if I understand correctly, that the current global warming may be caused at least in part by changes to the solar wind and magnetic fields. But you've given no reason to take this seriously at all.

Why do you think that? Why do you ignore the role of radiant energy, which is how Earth gets energy from the Sun? Did you miss the fact that recent decades have had reduced sunspot numbers? The levels are not as low as the Maunder minimum, but the point is that the direction corresponds to a small cooling effect; not warming!

I don't really expect you to answer this, because I appreciate you aren't claiming expertise on the matter. But I do think you are confused on this whole subject and raising up notions that make no physical sense, and which are not being suggested by anyone at all in the world of science, whether they are skeptical of conventional climate science or not.

Cheers -- sylas

[Augustine2004]

Sylas, look, were we able to measure the solar 'constant' directly in the 17th century!? Since the Maunder Minimum the sun has been in a 11-year or so cycle until recently. Nobody knows how to explain the data since the 16th c.

You can't rule out the influences of the solar magnetic field and the solar wind yet, because you don't know everything.

[sylas]

Augustine, look, we measure the solar constant directly NOW. It isn't causing the current strong warming trend.

The energy we get from the Sun comes mainly from sunlight. The energy from solar wind is minuscule by comparison; and from solar magnetic fields much smaller again.

YOU were the one who raised the Maunder Minimum. Not me. Can you explain why?

Conventional understanding is that the Maunder Minimum was a time of low solar activity, because we know there were no sunspots. And we know that when there are sunspots, the sun is more active and actually shines a bit more brightly. We measure it. And that extra energy physically does have an effect on Earth's climate. It has to.

The sunspot minimum also lines up with a time when temperatures in Europe were a bit reduced. Globally we are not so sure; it's not actually clear that the cooling was global rather than local. But assuming that there was a trend for reduced temperatures globally, it makes good sense to link that to the known reduced solar activity of the Sun at that time.

No-one has ever thought that magnetic fields and solar wind matters. Why SHOULD they? YOU need to give some reason for considering them, otherwise you might as well propose planetary alignments or landslides.

You can't rule out the influences of the solar magnetic field and the solar wind yet, because you don't know everything.

Come on! Have you ruled out influences of astrological alignment? Increased UFO activity? Landslides?

Yes, I and every scientist in the world as well, including those skeptical of conventional climate science, is going to continue to ignore influences invented out of thin air with no basis in theory or in evidence for thinking that the influence even exists.

Cheers -- sylas

[Augustine2004]

Augustine, look, we measure the solar constant directly NOW. It isn't causing the current strong warming trend.

Based on this graph of the solar irradiance and other things, the solar output has varied less than 0.2% trough to peak from 1975 to before 2006. Certainly you seem right about the irradiance variation not being a factor. Let's assume the sun in the Maunder Minimum was about that 'hot' also and that variations in the total solar irradiation (TSI) explain only a small part of the Maunder Minimum chill.

So, why so cold then? Let's assume anyway that some solar change or changes do explain it. What could they be? Changes in the shape of the radiation frequency-energy relationship (for example, more UV but less IR)? That seems rather unlikely. How could the shape change much without the TSI changing a lot also? That leaves the solar wind (including flares hitting Earth) and the solar magnetic field. The latter is known to change rather a lot; N may become S or vice versa after the field goes through zero, for example.

I have no detailed explanation why solar quiescence corresponds to chills. Maybe cosmic ray influx is not the whole explanation. Maybe Earth's atmosphere lets out more IR into space when the sun has been quiet for a long time? No, changes in energy content do not explain the quiescence-chill relationship. That includes what you say about the magnetic field and the solar wind. But, the aurorae do show up. The ionized layers of the atmosphere (the F2 layer, e.g.) do bounce radio waves. Maybe when the sun is more 'active' (not that much more energetic) the atmosphere changes so much that relatively more IR is 'trapped' (note the quotes).


Has the hypothesis of the cosmic rays as seeds for cloud formation been definitely ruled out already? If so what's the paper that did it in?

[shunyadragon]

Sylas, look, were we able to measure the solar 'constant' directly in the 17th century!? Since the Maunder Minimum the sun has been in a 11-year or so cycle until recently. Nobody knows how to explain the data since the 16th c.

You can't rule out the influences of the solar magnetic field and the solar wind yet, because you don't know everything.

Your stumbling around in the dark against 'sylas' who does know what he is talking about.

[Augustine2004]

Your stumbling around in the dark against 'sylas' who does know what he is talking about.

OK, go ahead, explain the Maunder Minimum.

[grmorton]

I have a few moments while my work re-loads from a re-boot

Augustine, look, we measure the solar constant directly NOW. It isn't causing the current strong warming trend.

Most theories of solar influence look at the role of an increased cosmic ray bombardment when the solar cycle goes down, as it did in the Maunder Minimum. Those cosmic rays do act as condensation nuclei and that creates clouds increasing the albedo of the earth, cooling it. Svensmark is the guy whose work you should look up.

So, one doesn't need the solar constant to change for the temperature of the earth to change because of solar influences.

Today was the second day in a row without a spot on the sun. I don't care what one believes about AGW, the sun is NOT behaving normally right now. Almost everyone agrees that the Maunder minimum was one of the causes of the Little Ice Age. The present solar cycle has less than half the spots of the last cycle. Europe and much of the US is freezing, with the UK on track for the coldest ever December (where is the warming when you really need it) and today I saw a report that New South Wales received a nice summer snowfall. They got 10 cm of white, fluffly cold, global warming. http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/b...-1225974173962

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/uk-experi.../137848-2.html

No doubt you will say I shouldn't confuse weather with climate, but when things are hot, all you AGW folks are crowing about that weather.

The really interesting thing about this debate AND the debate of the 1970s is that those scared of climate change, either towards warmer weather or colder weather, want government control. In the 1970s the mantra was the earth is cooling off, we need governmental control. Today it is, 'the earth is warming, we need governmental control'. The real underlying game here is governmental control.


In Stephen Schneider's 1970s book predicting near term global cooling (that never happened)

Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 47

"Increasingly, we need a long-range plan to avoid a dangerous dependence on some of the solutions it offers-solutions that seem attractive in the short run but could be very risky later. To reduce this danger, I propose consideration of the creation of a fourth branch of government, the Truth and Consequences Branch, whose mission would be neither administrative, legislative, nor judicial, but rather purely informational, serving in much the same way the present fourth estate (i.e., media) operates. To obtain its information, the Truth and Consequences Branch would need no subterranean connections like those of certain columnists and muckrakers. It would be a democratically chosen of government possessing access to and concerned with the dissemination of any information (save top-security data) needed to sharpen or awaken public debate, particularly on critical issues of future survival."

© source where applicable

And yes, the global warming hysteriac Stephen Schneider DID believe that the earth was going to cool in the near term

Stephen Schneider, The Genesis Strategy, (New York: Plenum Press, 1976), p. 90

" I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in-perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age-and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling."

© source where applicable

Other books I have in my library include Lowell Ponte's The Cooling, Prentice Hall, 1976. The back jacket has Stephen Schneider, the professional hysteriac regardless of the direction he thinks the temperature is going, saying how important this book is.

Stephen H. Schneider, Deputy Head Climate Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Back jacket, Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, Prentice-Hall, 1976

"The dramatic importance of climatic changes to the world's future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against the threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's provocative work is a good place to start.

© source where applicable

Note the call for world wide action--read that governmental control. The book discusses building a dam across the Bering strait and a jetty 200 miles long from Newfoundland to the Grand Banks, to keep the Labrador current from cooling the Gulf stream. In that way, we could keep Europe warm from the coming ice age. The certitude with which they propound their belief reminds me of the certitude of AGW proponents, like you Chris.

Then I have an anonymously authored book (said to be from CIA personnell (and indeed it cites CIA studies a lot)), The Weather Conspiracy; The Coming of the New Ice Age.1977 Heron House Publishing.

That book says this:

The Weather Conspiracy; The Coming of the New Ice Age.1977 Heron House Publishing., p. 191

Leaders in climatology and economics are in agreement that climate change is taking place and that it has already caused major economic problems throughout the world. As it becomes more apparent to the nations around the world that the current trend is indeed a long term reality, new alignments will be made among nations to ensure a secure supply of food resources."

© source where applicable

I know from personal scientific experience that cooling was a major worry of the CIA at that time. I had a man who worked for me in the mid 1970s who was doing Maximum entropy deconvolutions, to detect small signals in noisy data. Robert G. Curry was how he published, but we all knew him as Bob. Bob came to me one day and asked if he could use a few minutes of CPU time on ARCO's computer for a side project. I probably didn't have the real authority to grant it, but I said "Go ahead and do it." He then published the first detection of the solar cycle in the temperature data from the cities in the Western USA. This work won him a year sabbatical at the National Science Foundation, at ARCO's salary. He was allowed to study whatever the H he wanted to study--no limits. Before Bob left for the year, he received a visit from the CIA. I didn't know this when one day at lunch when we were playing chess (Bob was a Chess Master), I asked, "Who the hell cares if the solar cycle can be found in the temperatures. That was when he told me of the CIA visit. He pointed out to me that the world had warmed since the Maunder Minimum and that the wheat belt in Canada had gone 100 miles further north of where it had been in the 1870s. The CIA, it seems, was worried that if the globe cooled, and the wheat belt retreated to its 1870s latitude, that food would become scarce and there would be riots and government instability in the 3rd world.

Today, the governmental control hysteriacs are proclaiming that the world is warming and we need governmental controls on fossil fuel use. Yesterday it was that the world was cooling and we needed governmental control to ensure a food supply. The goal is the same--governmental control. Warming or cooling really doesn't matter.


And for the record, Chris, I abhor your condescending comments to Augustine about UFOs and aliens. Such comments say that you are not serious about data. You, like many liberal, merely ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. Such arrogance is disgusting.

[grmorton]

Your stumbling around in the dark against 'sylas' who does know what he is talking about.

Another fact free opinion from Frank. Frank, can you ever cite data or do you think your mere opinion, laid out on a thread, is sufficient to cause everyone to bow down before you?

By the way I have yet to see you explain the following from the Bahai text:

Baha'u'llah, "Kitab-I-Iqan, (Williamette, IL: Bahai Publishing Trust, 1950), p. 157

"For instance, consider the substance of copper. Were it to be protected in its own mine from becoming solidified, it would, within the space of seventy years, attain to the state of gold. There are some, however, who maintain that copper itself is gold, which by becoming solidified is in a diseased condition, and hath not therefore reached its own state."
"Be that as it may, the real elixir will, in one instant, cause the substance of copper to attain the state of gold, and will traverse the seventy-year stages in a single moment. Could this gold be called copper? Could it be claimed that it hath not attained the state of gold, whilst the touch-stone is at hand to assay it and distinguish it from copper?"

© source where applicable

Is this an example of good science?

[grmorton]

OK, go ahead, explain the Maunder Minimum.

Frank is a fact-free scientist. His opinion of Chris Ho-Stuart's abilities is all that is required to make you bow down and worship Frank, the guy who believes the religion that says copper becomes gold if it is left in the ground for 70 years. I have asked Frank the question above several times. He merely goes silent when asked.

[grmorton]

Chris posted a wonderful picture showing how the temperature high records are increasing and the temperature low records are decreasing. I reproduce it below. I am not at all surprised given that the stupid governmental climatologists place thermometers above air conditioner vents.
WeatherTitusville2.jpgweatherRecordHighsRecordLows.jpg

If you think this is good science practice, Chris, you and I have a very very different idea of what good physics is like.

The reboot is about over. I have another week of work on this job I have so, see you all after Christmas. Hopefully Chris will have come to his senses and realize that hot air blowing on thermometers will give the pattern of record highs and lows that he illustrates.

[Augustine2004]

Glenn, has anyone investigated the interactions of say white light (anyway, essentially every frequency that can be generated) with what I suppose could be called semi-plasma (mixture of electrons, positive ions of several kinds, and molecules-atoms of several kinds)?

[grmorton]

I'm... actually kind of surprised this is in slate.
http://www.slate.com/id/2277104?wpisrc=xs_wp_0001

But it is a good point.

The fact is, if you depend on the government, as many scientists and university profs do, for your income, you HAVE to be a democrat. Dems are the only ones who want a bigger government.

I for one am extremely tired of being told that if I don't fund XYZ project, the sky will fall on my head. Scientists who get their funding from the government are merely parasitic to me. They are the true economic parasites. They ask for funding from me, via my taxes, then if they invent something THEY get the patent and the income from the patent, even though I funded it. That isn't fair.That is crony capitalism.

[grmorton]

It is irrational to go from the fact natural processes can cause a certain effect to the inference that humans cannot cause it. The truth is completely the opposite.

It is irrational Sylas to say that if humans cause what nature has previously caused unaided, that we should spend gazillions to stop it.