|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 5, 2013 12:15:31 GMT
Data is fine. We just need more of it.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 5, 2013 2:48:48 GMT
The paper has this to say “It is proposed that an ion-mechanism exists which provides a second signi?cant pathway for making additional H2SO4, as a possible explanation of the present experimental ?ndings”. They injected sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the chamber and managed to convert some of that [using UV-lamps] to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and found that adding ions to the mix made that process more efficient. This does not seem to be much of a confirmation of a correlation that has not held up over time in the first place. A sober assessment of the available evidence www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf [see also www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf ] concludes “In this paper we have examined the evidence of a CR-cloud relationship from direct and indirect observations of cloud recorded from satellite- and ground-based measurement techniques. Overall, the current satellite cloud datasets do not provide evidence supporting the existence of a solar-cloud link”
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 26, 2013 13:17:21 GMT
the status and plans are here: lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/08/19/sorce-spacecraft-status/"With the loss of another battery cell, SORCE is now operating in a new configuration. While we are working ultimately towards recovering back to normal operations with daily solar irradiance measurements, our current focus is preparing the spacecraft to support a campaign mode to assure overlapping measurements between SORCE and TCTE in December 2013. There will be a data gap for SORCE for several weeks, but we plan to continue the SORCE solar irradiance measurements as soon as it is feasible."
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 6, 2013 5:29:25 GMT
Since the UV is such a small fraction of TSI, it doesn't matter much that its variation is 3% of a tiny bit. We know of no process that would make UV vary differently in different cycles. The variation of UV comes about by the variation of solar activity in general. There is no 'special' and separate UV-cycle, as far as we know.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Aug 5, 2013 17:46:19 GMT
"The planet seems to be moving in a cooling direction, at just the time the folks who think solar influence would cause such cooling. Will anything convince you the sun has something to do with climate?"
The Sun has something to do with climate. We expect a 0.1 C solar cycle variation, which so far is just barely observed in the noise. Other than that there is very little evidence. For example: the Sun now is at the level of activity it had a century ago, yet our climate is very different. Even if another Maunder Minimum were to materialize in the coming decades the climate would only respond by the same 0.1 C [corresponding to loss of the solar cycle signal]. So, the Sun is a climate driver, but not a major one, so not one we should worry about.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 12, 2013 14:23:39 GMT
No, it is the best fit to ALL the individual observations Thanks but what i was getting at was that the trend line is not corrected by some method for the missing data. I was thinking initially if any supplied data is nearly always truncated at a known point, and is normally distributed then a correction could be applied somehow. The trend line is not 'corrected' but shows the trend as observed. The way we correct is use the distributions, as in Figure 3 of www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 11, 2013 17:55:46 GMT
The sun does the cutting as sunspots do not form or become visible when the magnetic field is lower than 1500 G. So is the trend line shown since 2009 just the best fit of all of the available annual means? No, it is the best fit to ALL the individual observations
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 11, 2013 5:16:50 GMT
If you keep cutting off data points below 1500 G, the curve will flatten out Why would they cut off the data points below 1500 G? Does it get so low that the measurement is not valid? The sun does the cutting as sunspots do not form or become visible when the magnetic field is lower than 1500 G.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 11, 2013 1:30:03 GMT
Thats not much of anything for the last 4 years If you keep cutting off data points below 1500 G, the curve will flatten out
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 8, 2013 13:06:03 GMT
Any updated L&P information out there? year median mean 2001.77 2516 2539 2002.55 2447 2482 2003.80 2333 2373 2004.60 2277 2292 2005.63 2199 2230 2006.43 2180 2215 2007.33 2390 2451 2008.23 2217 2191 2009.81 2046 2040 2010.58 2026 2074 2011.58 2046 2087 2012.61 2007 2047 2013.29 2009 2037
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 15:31:32 GMT
I sent it via the message function on this board: Dr. Svalgaard: The idea that we lose any data or ability to amass data during the next few cycles is troubling. I talked to my Senator, Senator Hoeven today in regards to this. He is on appropriations and would like to start a movement to make sure that studying the sun does not have interruptions during the next several decades. Is there anything specific I could do to help? Vote for him again.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 3:43:37 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: I sent you a message after a phone conversation had today. Thank you what message?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 0:32:59 GMT
The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 Wm ^2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE). This value is slightly lower than 1365.4 ± 1.3 Wm ^2 established in the 1990s That difference is an artifact caused by construction flaws in earlier instruments.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 0:08:20 GMT
Dr. Svalgaard: Are you satisfied with the current satellites as far as providing basic facts? Or would you like another one launched that can do more? The main issue is not to do more but to continue to do what we are doing. Many satellites are nearing [or already past] their useful life.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 12, 2013 0:00:08 GMT
Perhaps if one hunts around on the websites one may find comparable data. Let me try that. Here is the SEM-EUV run simce 1995: The red and blue curves are the observed fluxes. The purple and green curves are calculated from a fit to the SSN over then interval 1996-2008 (cycle 23). For cycle 24 the observed values fall significantly below what we would expect for the SSNs observed. My inclination would be to interpret that as progressive degradation of the instrument. This is bolstered by this plot of the ratio between the observed and calculated fluxes:
|
|