|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 22:45:21 GMT
There are many people that think they know what the link is. One idea that has been promoted is that solar activity modulates cosmic rays [OK it does], and that cosmic rays modulates low clouds [claimed but not demonstrated convincingly], and that low clouds modulates the albedo [no doubt about that], and that the albedo determines the temperature [it does]. The weak link is that the albedo does not seem to be varying in sync with solar activity. So there we stand on that idea. There is no lack of other [weirder] ideas. Here is one: solar activity [or planetary tides] modulates a [non-existing] fusion process in the Earth's core, that in turn controls the heat escaping from the ground warming our feet and then the air. Just to give you a flavor of how low we have sunk. Thus it appears you believe this "amplitude factor" theory has merit, and much current research is ongoing in this area? Could you comment on any causal relationship between sunspots and water vapor in light of these comments: "In brief, he says high levels of sunspot activity—such as the earth experienced during the past century—increase the volume of water vapor, the greatest of all greenhouse gases, warming the earth in two ways: First, when vapor condenses, it increases cloud cover and that prevents terrestrial heat from escaping into the atmosphere. Secondly, it also increases the density of ultra-high cirrus clouds (5-8 km) that prevent heat from escaping into space." Thanks. This is certainly correct. The only problem is 'how much', and that is a big problem, because the Sun has not warmed by much and solar activity has not been that much higher. It is all simply a matter of degree.
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Apr 29, 2009 8:03:42 GMT
The main reason his first paper was rejected was that he could not come up with a mechanism that would account for the decrease. In science, you don't need to have the right mechanism, ANY mechanism would do to show that the result was at least plausible or even possible. Then we can all later fight about which mechanism is the correct one. Don’t I know it. I got the formula, but ‘right mechanism’ apparently is not there, on the other hand I am not a scientist with a reputation to protect. Rejection and occasional ridicule is worth enduring in order to keep ‘your baby’ alive from the onslaught and cruelty of the scientific establishment. On 2pi/3 or (/4) angle, I shall give a view in due course since I've decided to deconstruct the formula, for benefit of the doubting Thomas’.
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Apr 30, 2009 11:50:48 GMT
So as long as Drs. Livingston and Penn came up with a plausible BS explanation they would have been published? In that case why not go for broke and attribute the disappearance of sunspots to AGW and the use of SUV’s? Heck, they would have been put on a fast track and gotten the front cover of Science. Drs. Livingston and Penn have a perfect and experimentally provided reason. Overall polar fields intensity has been falling during the last three cycles. Since ‘current science’ considers that polar fields and sunspot magnetic intensity are ‘linked’ to the same dynamo, than it is logically expected that it should be a relationship. Averaged Polar Magnetic Fields as measured by Wilcox SO Vukcevic’s formula projection
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 30, 2009 12:52:07 GMT
So as long as Drs. Livingston and Penn came up with a plausible BS explanation they would have been published? In that case why not go for broke and attribute the disappearance of sunspots to AGW and the use of SUV’s? Heck, they would have been put on a fast track and gotten the front cover of Science. Drs. Livingston and Penn have a perfect and experimentally provided reason. Overall polar fields intensity has been falling during the last three cycles. Since ‘current science’ considers that polar fields and sunspot magnetic intensity are ‘linked’ to the same dynamo, than it is logically expected that it should be a relationship. Averaged Polar Magnetic Fields as measured by Wilcox SO But there is no logical reason for simply extrapolating as you did.
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Apr 30, 2009 13:17:10 GMT
Averaged Polar Magnetic Fields as measured by Wilcox SO But there is no logical reason for simply extrapolating as you did. Les Earnest:At Stanford, "logical" compass directions denote a coordinate system in which "logical north" is toward San Francisco, "logical west" is toward the ocean, etc., even though logical north varies between physical (true) north near San Francisco and physical west near San Jose.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 30, 2009 13:29:59 GMT
But there is no logical reason for simply extrapolating as you did. Les Earnest:At Stanford, "logical" compass directions denote a coordinate system in which "logical north" is toward San Francisco, "logical west" is toward the ocean, etc., even though logical north varies between physical (true) north near San Francisco and physical west near San Jose. Could be, but has nothing to do with your unfounded extrapolation.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Apr 30, 2009 14:47:07 GMT
All,
Please forgive any ignorance and lack of understanding on my part, this is pretty new to me. However, I thought I would risk a post anyway, to at least have the opportunity to learn and perhaps even (longshot) to have a chance to be constructive.
It is my understanding that this thread concerns the amplification of the solar cycle signal as recently observed in SST and the potential for the Svensmark cloud formation hypothesis (as influenced by cosmic ray flux and the solar wind) to be the amplification factor and possible alternative hypotheses.
I was wondering if these alternative possibilities (below) had been considered and/or rejected and if so for what reasons :
1) Ozone formation as influenced by DUV irradiation (additional greenhouse gas?)
Ozone is formed in the upper atmosphere when atomic oxygen is subject to DUV radiation at a wavelength shorter than 180nm, forming atomic oxygen which reacts with molecular oxygen to form ozone. DUV radiation flux varies much more than TSI over the solar cycle. A recent NASA report mentioned that total UV radiation flux was now 6% lower than at Solar Max. Presumably DUV (the energetic UV that can break the oxygen double bond) variance has an even greater dependence on the solar cycle.
If ozone formation in the stratosphere varies with the solar cycle and since ozone is also a good greenhouse gas (polyatomic) with an absorption band near the peak of Earth's black body emission (~15um?), then presumably it would influence the heat balance in the atmosphere directly (in a similar manner to H2O and CO2) and be dependent on the solar cycle.
Is this a possible candidate for the amplification mechanism? And if not, why not?
2) Oxygen and Ozone (more likely) direct UV absorption of incoming and outgoing UV radiation as affected by the solar cycle
Since UV varies more than TSI over the solar cycle and since both oxygen and ozone absorb UV (at difference wavelengths), could they directly contribute to atmospheric heating? Specifically, as the UV and DUV radiation flux increases at solar max and ozone concentrations are increased by the UV flux, wouldn't UV light that would otherwise be scattered or reflected by ice (or water) be absorbed and heat the atmosphere directly? A significant fraction of UV is scattered back from the surface and the atmosphere of the planet into space. Couldn't some (or a larger fraction) of this scattered/reflected UV that would otherwise not contribute to heating the surface/atmosphere be absorbed (and therefore heat the earth)? There is also a Near IR absorption of O2 (777nm?) that might also be candidate for this kind of direct heating.
3) Expansion of the atmosphere affecting #1 and #2 above
I understand that atmospheric drag on satellites and space debris is lower now because of the solar minimum and because the atmosphere "breathes" (expands during solar max and contracts during solar min). Oxygen (and presumably ozone?) might expand during solar maximum and increase the cross-sectional area of the planet that would intercept UV light (or other wavelengths). Couldn't this also contribute to an amplification of the solar cycle signal?
Again, please forgive any ignorance that might have come from not reading all of your previous comments and being a chemist and not a physicist. I have only read a fraction of this Blog and much of this might have been discussed and/or discarded by others in the past.
Any and all constructive comments/criticisms are most welcome and would be greatly appreciated.
IWylie (Chicago, IL)
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Apr 30, 2009 14:59:35 GMT
Could be, but has nothing to do with your unfounded extrapolation. My unfounded extrapolation ain’t worse than the ones done by various Hathaways, Dikpatis and many other solar scientists, heavily funded by US taxpayers. I am unfunded man of independent unfounded thinking of the old ‘Mediterranean school’, but I do value and read you posts with respect. BTW (is that by the way?) do you know Mr Earnest personally?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 30, 2009 15:53:50 GMT
Could be, but has nothing to do with your unfounded extrapolation. My unfounded extrapolation ain’t worse than the ones done by various Hathaways, Dikpatis and many other solar scientists, heavily funded by US taxpayers. I am unfunded man of independent unfounded thinking of the old ‘Mediterranean school’, but I do value and read you posts with respect. BTW (is that by the way?) do you know Mr Earnest personally? as long as you know it is unfounded, its quite OK with me. No, I don't know a Mr Earnest.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Apr 30, 2009 16:04:45 GMT
"solar activity [or planetary tides] modulates a [non-existing] fusion process in the Earth's core, that in turn controls the heat escaping from the ground warming our feet and then the air. Just to give you a flavor of how low we have sunk."
For several months, I have been putting forth a theory that the Sun might influence nuclear fusion in the Earth's crust or mantle, and manifest as volcanic activity. I have never claimed that the Sun induces nuclear fusion in the core.
The strongest evidence I have is a letter from Stephen Sohinki of the National Nuclear Security Administration, asking me to help explain anomalous tritium from volcanoes. This letter contradicts a USGS study, which "explains away" the tritium by claiming the isotopes are from recent (post-nuclear weapon test era) sources.
There is evidence that the Sun influences radioactive decay, and evidence that solar activity can affect earthquakes. This theory is not as wacky as it sounds...
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 30, 2009 16:54:06 GMT
"solar activity [or planetary tides] modulates a [non-existing] fusion process in the Earth's core, that in turn controls the heat escaping from the ground warming our feet and then the air. Just to give you a flavor of how low we have sunk." For several months, I have been putting forth a theory that the Sun might influence nuclear fusion in the Earth's crust or mantle, and manifest as volcanic activity. I have never claimed that the Sun induces nuclear fusion in the core. The strongest evidence I have is a letter from Stephen Sohinki of the National Nuclear Security Administration, asking me to help explain anomalous tritium from volcanoes. This letter contradicts a USGS study, which "explains away" the tritium by claiming the isotopes are from recent (post-nuclear weapon test era) sources. There is evidence that the Sun influences radioactive decay, and evidence that solar activity can affect earthquakes. This theory is not as wacky as it sounds... The core was not the issue. The mantle or the crust have the same problems. There are several issues, starting with the assumption that solar activity influences radioactive decay [in spite of the evidence you say there is for that]. Next is setting up the necessary conditions for fission: a concentration of fissionable material [essential U235] and the presence of a moderator to slow down the neutrons [water]. Such conditions have existed in the past, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactorand could in principle exist today except that that the known case referred to took place 2 billion years ago when the concentration of U235 was much higher than today. Today the concentration is so low that this process will not work anymore. The main issue is still the assumption that solar activity or planetary tides influence radioactive decay. Early on, the question of the constancy of the decay process was widely investigated under various extreme conditions and no deviations were found. 'Evidence' is a big word, I would replace it with 'suggestions' for the process you are discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Apr 30, 2009 17:15:17 GMT
The solar influence on radioacive decay was discussed in Science News, Nov. 22, 2008, pp. 20-23.
Half-life (more or less) Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay By Davide Castelvecchi
Also, I am referring to catalyzed nuclear fusion, not fission. All you need is water!
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 30, 2009 17:37:33 GMT
The solar influence on radioacive decay was discussed in Science News, Nov. 22, 2008, pp. 20-23. Half-life (more or less) Physicists are stirred by claims that the sun may change what’s unchangeable—the rate of radioactive decay By Davide Castelvecchi Also, I am referring to catalyzed nuclear fusion, not fission. All you need is water! Sorry that I missed the fusion bit [rather than fission]. The solar influence is still only a 'claim'. But you are now bringing in 'cold fusion' and that is further out on my list of 'weird' claims. I know it has some following, but such ideas always get that. But, perhaps I'm not really competent to discuss those 'far out' things as my interest and knowledge are more confined to what we know. There is the 'extraordinary claims require ...' bit.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Apr 30, 2009 17:41:13 GMT
Evidence is a big word, and tritium is a frightening material. Steven Jones of BYU and others have tried to detect anomalous tritium as evidence of volcanic nuclear fusion; so the letter I have from DOE is sort of a "smoking gun." Tritium is a kriegswaffe, or substance of war, and it is valued at about $26,000 per gram. My Congresswoman from Hawaii, the late Honorable Patsy T. Mink, was trying to get answers from Richard Myserve (?) at Nuclear Regulatory Commission (?) (I don't have the letter in front of me...) but she died before getting any responses.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 30, 2009 17:49:52 GMT
Evidence is a big word, and tritium is a frightening material. Steven Jones of BYU and others have tried to detect anomalous tritium as evidence of volcanic nuclear fusion; so the letter I have from DOE is sort of a "smoking gun." Tritium is a kriegswaffe, or substance of war, and it is valued at about $26,000 per gram. My Congresswoman from Hawaii, the late Honorable Patsy T. Mink, was trying to get answers from Richard Myserve (?) at Nuclear Regulatory Commission (?) (I don't have the letter in front of me...) but she died before getting any responses. Luckily Tritium disappears all by itself if left for a few decades. It may be hard to get some response out of the Government. I recall a [perhaps] similar situation with the first gamma rays observed by the Vela satellites [sent up to spy on Soviet nuclear tests or monitor the ban] in the 1960s. BTW, I thought Tritium was a source material for fusion, not produced by it. What cold fusion process produces Tritium?
|
|