|
Post by woodstove on Feb 15, 2010 22:13:04 GMT
It seems to me I saw Leif Svalgaard use the exact same worse to describe David Hathaway when he was attacked by Anti-AGW Types in the Solar Forum about a year ago. Despite what you might think David Hathaway did not encounter a miraculous revealtion that lead to an epiphany. He actually modified his conclusions very gradually over several iterations. And now actual solar events that have taken place on the sun over the last 2 months in general and in the last week in particular point in the opposite direction. It may be early but the numbers don't lie and if this trend continues they will certainly disprove the consensus of NASA's Panel.....once again. Last I checked, Abdussamatov and Hathaway were in agreement that SC25 should be weak. So now his predictions gain credibility ? Why do you want to change the subject to Cycle 25 ? First you have to hit Cycle 24. 1. One of the things that Hathaway said was that he was "increasingly worried about the conveyor belt and its role in the sunspot cycle and in the prediction of sunspot cycles." This is not merely about who can guess cycle strength the most skillfully but about the most basic processes within the Sun. I never said that he came to this conclusion all at once. I said that he came to it because of the Sun's behavior. 2. The lengthy solar minimum caught most observers by surprise, and despite the recent fireworks we don't actually know yet whether 24 will be relatively quiet. Some metrics indicate that it will be relatively tame. Time will tell. Livingston and Penn's work is significant in this regard (to Leif Svalgaard, among others). By the way, Bill Livingston gets access to the telescope about one day a month. So, until the burst of activity to which you allude, it was generally unlikely that he would get a reading on any of the short-lived spots and specks that characterized SC24 until so very recently. 3. The point regarding Solar Cycle 25 is not to change the subject but simply to look at the possibility that we are facing back-to-back quiet cycles, as many solar physicists have predicted. Again, time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 15, 2010 22:50:56 GMT
I don't want to argue with a moderator, but considering the rules of this board, I think that you are taking advantage by directly addressing AGW I can see how someone would say that but from the tenor and drift of this thread it was either move it or poop can it. and labeling someone as a "denier". Your the one with the moniker calling into question the intelligence who focuses on carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming. Hmmmmm "You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming."And Shaviv and Svensmark would agree that it is probably not TSI but more solar wind strength that is indirectly influencing Earth's climate. Highlighting at the small variances in TSI all the time may be missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 16, 2010 1:42:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 16, 2010 1:48:26 GMT
I can see how someone would say that but from the tenor and drift of this thread it was either move it or poop can it. Your the one with the moniker calling into question the intelligence who focuses on carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming. Hmmmmm "You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming."And Shaviv and Svensmark would agree that it is probably not TSI but more solar wind strength that is indirectly influencing Earth's climate. Highlighting at the small variances in TSI all the time may be missing the point. As more is learned what the Solar Wind does and doesn't do, it is becoming more evident that the climate is subject to that wind. That is one variable that is being discovered to be of importance. What other variables that havne't been discussed are also important? That is the key question/questions.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Feb 16, 2010 3:31:16 GMT
I don't want to argue with a moderator, but considering the rules of this board, I think that you are taking advantage by directly addressing AGW I can see how someone would say that but from the tenor and drift of this thread it was either move it or poop can it. and labeling someone as a "denier". Your the one with the moniker calling into question the intelligence who focuses on carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. [glow=red,2,300]You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming.[/glow] Hmmmmm And of course that is a very limited, narrow view of the potential impacts of all potential solar influences.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Feb 17, 2010 6:07:36 GMT
Although this discussion and the video reference in Archibald's post references climate, I find that the remainder of the video (American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2009, December 14-18, San Francisco) is informative, especially to a bear of little brain. The thread of the sessions is what we are learning from the "anomalous" solar minimum just past, including solar convection / conveyor, solar wind and magnetic polarity, TSI and GCR effects. Video of American Geophysical Union presentations (about 2 hours): eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.htmlAnother post which references the video is here: Archibald, David. “Dalton Minimum Repeat goes mainstream.” ICECAP. icecap.us/images/uploads/DaltonMinimumRepeatgoesmainstream.pdfEnd of Solar Grand Maximum & start of next Dalton Minimum?"Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years.
"While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is the most likely thing to happen next."
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 18, 2010 1:08:40 GMT
[quote author=trbixler board=globalwarming thread=1080 post=42082 time=1266284525Although this discussion and the video reference in Archibald's post references climate, I find that the remainder of the video (American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2009, December 14-18, San Francisco) is informative, especially to a bear of little brain. The thread of the sessions is what we are learning from the "anomalous" solar minimum just past, including solar convection / conveyor, solar wind and magnetic polarity, TSI and GCR effects. Yes Pooh the talks are very good to listen to. I really regret missing this year's conference. There isn't much to disagree with but there are a number of leaps that are made. The most common one is "we've been in a Grand Maximum for so long that we are bound for a correction and now it is going to start" This is the very same narrative that dominated the discussion of heliophysics prior to the start of Cycle 21. Nearly everyone back then predict a peak of 50 for Cycle 21. And look where we are 34 years later. Solanki bases his assessment of measurements of decreased Solar Magnetism which is far more substantive than the Statistical methods used back then. I will respond to other comments to show you in the past that scientists were just as convinced we would have a small cycle only to be skunked. And they were no less adamant thean scientist today. That's why I am reluctant to believe the same logic reformulated in 21st Century Terms.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 18, 2010 2:03:42 GMT
I can see how someone would say that but from the tenor and drift of this thread it was either move it or poop can it. Your the one with the moniker calling into question the intelligence who focuses on carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. [glow=red,2,300]You point to cyclical variations in Solar Cycle as the cause. Yet Leif Svalgaard a physicist who has studied TSI found such variations are so low as to have little effect on Global Warming.[/glow] Hmmmmm And of course that is a very limited, narrow view of the potential impacts of all potential solar influences. ITSS Those are the findings of Leif Svalgaard a physicist that has studied the sun and knows a thing or two about the subject matter. Leif is also a member of NASA's SC 24 Prediction Panel. And one of the members who called for a low SC 24. That assessment was rewarded with numerous overtures by AGW Skeptics to recruit him into their ranks. To his credit Leif resisted all of those ovetures. Now you can continue to label people but that doesn't give your argument any credibility. You have to prove WHY he is wrong in order to attain that.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 18, 2010 3:46:09 GMT
One of the problems is that no-one knows all there is to know.
Discoveries continue to be made of things that affect the Earth's climate directly or indirectly that were totally unexpected by 'the experts'. So it is strange that climatology appears to be the one area where new scientific hypotheses based on observations are treated with such hostility, often by experts in other areas that do not appear to fully understand the hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by Bob k6tr on Feb 18, 2010 3:54:09 GMT
1. One of the things that Hathaway said was that he was "increasingly worried about the conveyor belt and its role in the sunspot cycle and in the prediction of sunspot cycles." Stove, that statement raises even more questions about Hathaway. The reason being was Hathaway's Prediction was not based on the "conveyor belt" theory. That is the basis for Mausumi Dikpati's Prediction. Hathaway's prediction was based a a Precursor Method that analyzed the Global A Index (A p )2 years before Sunspot Minimum. His method was similar to that used by R.J. Thompson in 1985 to accurately predict Cycle 22. This is not merely about who can guess cycle strength the most skillfully but about the most basic processes within the Sun. You can say that again ! I' ve had my fill of the Crystal Ball nonsense. I want a formula that I can plug some numbers into and be right every time. Unfortunately there seems to be no light at the end of this tunnel. 2. The lengthy solar minimum caught most observers by surprise, Not if you were around for Cycle 20. That Cycle dragged on to ! And Ol Sol came back like a bat out of hell. and despite the recent fireworks we don't actually know yet whether 24 will be relatively quiet. Some metrics indicate that it will be relatively tame. Time will tell. Right again The numbers don't lie. The use of the word fireworks gives the impression the current spate of activity will dwindle. While that is one possibility it is not the only possibility. Did you notice the daily Sunspot count rebounded Wednesday ? Tuesday the Daily the Count was 28 Wednesday it was 49. And from the looks of it the Daily Numbers will continue to go strong through the end of the month. See how the Dominant Presumption keeps getting reinjected back into the discourse ? Livingston and Penn's work is significant in this regard (to Leif Svalgaard, among others). Agreed By the way, Bill Livingston gets access to the telescope about one day a month. I'm not rushing them at all. Although by July 1 they will be proven or disproven one way or another. So, until the burst of activity to which you allude, it was generally unlikely that he would get a reading on any of the short-lived spots and specks that characterized SC24 until so very recently. There is that presumption again. I'll repreat I am not rushing Bill Livingston. Give him all the time he needs. 3. The point regarding Solar Cycle 25 is not to change the subject but simply to look at the possibility that we are facing back-to-back quiet cycles, as many solar physicists have predicted. Again, time will tell. The point is you have to have one cycle nailed down before you can consider another when it comes to evaluating a prediction method. And that is why physicists are compelled to predict two cycles, because we have had a number of incidents where a prediction method pinpointed one cycle only to fail miserably on the next. Just because they predicted two cycles doesn't make them anymore credible. I know I promised more but I have to tend to some emails. Ask again tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Feb 18, 2010 21:39:03 GMT
And of course that is a very limited, narrow view of the potential impacts of all potential solar influences. ITSS Those are the findings of Leif Svalgaard a physicist that has studied the sun and knows a thing or two about the subject matter. Leif is also a member of NASA's SC 24 Prediction Panel. And one of the members who called for a low SC 24. That assessment was rewarded with numerous overtures by AGW Skeptics to recruit him into their ranks. To his credit Leif resisted all of those ovetures. Now you can continue to label people but that doesn't give your argument any credibility. You have to prove WHY he is wrong in order to attain that. Fine. But that does not relegate my point as meaningless. BTW, you sure infer a lot about the intent of my moniker. Could it have been a spur of the moment attempt at humor while I went through the registration process, or could it have some other intent different from what you assume.? You don't know, do you?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 19, 2010 1:17:28 GMT
Leif is a grandfather, a gentleman, and very helpful & informative. He is a true scientist, and therefore a "skeptic". His is just as skeptical of both alarmism & the opposite.
Given his position, he is hardly going to join the "Christians being sacrificed to the lions", (which is the best way of describing how most dissenting scientists have been treated over the past few years). I would expect him to be very neutral about any ideas that don't have strong evidential support.
The whole issue of the Sun and climate is far from settled, and Leif is not going to "join" any enthusiastic band, at least not without overwhelming evidence.
For many of us, it hasn't been about taking (or joining) sides, but trying to point out that the Science isn't settled, that there isn't a consensus (and Science is never settled, nor is there ever a consensus). Science isn't about democracy.
It has been the alarmists (1) trying to hijack world politics and destroying our freedoms & way of life and (2) mercilessly persecuting those of a contrary opinion that has caused the voices of many to be raised in protest.
It is the Alarmists who have been creating the division, who have been demonizing their opposition. It fact, there really are no "denialists", "Skeptics" or any other such organised groups. Any religious group tends to demonize everyone else, and label them with some derogatory word.
So we are who we are, very different, and we refuse to be labelled. After all, as the ancients use to believe, to name something is to have power over it.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 19, 2010 2:10:20 GMT
Leif sounds like the (climate) scientists here at the IMAU (Utrecht University). They are all well aware of the uncertainties of AGW, will discuss them with you, are relatively weary of the IPCC and political influences, and detest alarmism just as much as false skepticism (the guys denying nearly all known/assumed science in a certain field). I actually think many climate scientists are like that. A few however, as we've seen in the emails seem to be a lot less balanced. However, with so many scientists (yeah, there are quite a few more than some of the "skeptics" are saying), so many ideas are around (from extreme skepticism to extreme alarmism). Most are in between. Now, they are blamed for everything, but most of them will not respond. Just as they did not respond to extreme alarmism, because they are busy and tired of being misinterpreted all the time by the media circus. They just don't care. I'm starting to just don't care. It's better to get back to work and do it well. That's their job.
|
|