|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 9, 2011 1:19:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 9, 2011 5:41:57 GMT
Yes, I have read your "Does the sun vary enough?" presentation. That said, if I were a betting man, I would bet that the sun does effect climate as it defies logic that the basic power input to our system would not have to vary much to drive change. We just don't really know enough about the sun or the climate to prove what I think should be the null hypothesis wrong. As you like to say, time will tell - and this time we have enough instrumentation to see if the TSI changes or remains the same and whether the other outputs vary but TSI remains relatively constant. The temp of the atmosphere will be the number I follow, less manmade variation than the one on the ground. www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2011.gif |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 9, 2011 16:52:48 GMT
Yes, I have read your "Does the sun vary enough?" presentation. That said, if I were a betting man, I would bet that the sun does effect climate as it defies logic that the basic power input to our system would not have to vary much to drive change. We just don't really know enough about the sun or the climate to prove what I think should be the null hypothesis wrong. As you like to say, time will tell - and this time we have enough instrumentation to see if the TSI changes or remains the same and whether the other outputs vary but TSI remains relatively constant. The temp of the atmosphere will be the number I follow, less manmade variation than the one on the ground. www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2011.gifThe sun does influence the climate, to the tune of 0.1 degree. That follows from logic [and physics]. Anything more than that is wishful thinking. If the sun were a major driver, the effect would be clearly visible and convince everybody. The fact that it is not and there is debate is perhaps a clue. |
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Jun 9, 2011 17:03:46 GMT
.... That said, if I were a betting man, I would bet that the sun does effect climate as it defies logic that the basic power input to our system would not have to vary much to drive change. CET (Central England Temperature) is the longest temperature record available. CET correlation with SSN (for any reasonable period of time selected) is too low to give a conclusive confirmation of significant change. www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-SSN.htm |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 9, 2011 19:44:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 10, 2011 2:36:05 GMT
No, I have said my piece on this. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I just lay out my reasons for my private viewpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 10, 2011 4:25:52 GMT
No, I have said my piece on this. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I just lay out my reasons for my private viewpoint. Thanks Leif, I knew that and my comment was aimed at Vukevic. Sorry for not making myself clear. As for the viewpoint, your is much more informed than mine, so everyone should understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 10, 2011 4:31:15 GMT
Something you can answer, and are the world's foremost expert on - what does this mean? Will the polar fields weaken because of the L & P effect? Will that change where the boundary occurs? I think you have stated the L & P effect will only occur for spots, not the polar field, thus this may be unrelated to our primary topic here, but still very interesting. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110609132156.htm |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 10, 2011 4:47:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 10, 2011 6:26:03 GMT
Something you can answer, and are the world's foremost expert on - what does this mean? Will the polar fields weaken because of the L & P effect? Will that change where the boundary occurs? I think you have stated the L & P effect will only occur for spots, not the polar field, thus this may be unrelated to our primary topic here, but still very interesting. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110609132156.htmThe polar fields should not weaken much because of L&P. The Voyager 'news' is just a confirmation of our 35-yr old explanation of cosmic ray modulation by cosmic rays being scattered off the turbulent, tangled magnetic fields [the 'bubbles'] where the heliospheric current sheet approaches the boundary: http://www,leif.org/research/HCS-Nature-1976.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 10, 2011 6:31:11 GMT
Some supernovae burn all their hydrogen and consists of shells of Mg, Si, Ne, O, and C. The famous 'standard candles', type Ia, does not have any hydrogen. |
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Jun 10, 2011 11:03:48 GMT
Thanks, it is just very surprising to me that all truly means all - that you can't pick up any in a spectrographic analysis is rather shocking. Of course, maybe it shouldn't surprise me as there sure is a whole lot of C and other elements around and this is where it came from.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 10, 2011 12:31:03 GMT
Thanks, it is just very surprising to me that all truly means all - that you can't pick up any in a spectrographic analysis is rather shocking. Of course, maybe it shouldn't surprise me as there sure is a whole lot of C and other elements around and this is where it came from. All the hydrogen has been burned into Carbon [and Magnesium and Silicon]. No more shocking that all the wood has disappeared at the end of a vigorous bonfire. |
|
|
|
Post by canelaz on Jun 15, 2011 14:32:45 GMT
Hello Dr. Svalgaard, First off, I want to thank you for your work on Solar cycle 24. It has been extremely interesting to read about. I'm still extremely green on astronomy and solar physics, but one day I might catch on. I'm working on a 2012 blog dedicated to debunking the doomsday garbage. The blogs information will also be posted on 2012hoax.org. The number one concern I hear from people seems to be about the sun. Many 2012ers have used the sun as a platform to produce their nonsensical doomsday theories. Would it be ok if I asked you a few questions in particular of a goof ball named Patrick Geryl? He is convinced that Solar Cycle 24 will produce a killer flare that stems from a negative sunspot. He thinks this flare will enter at the south pole due to the 23.5 degree axial tilt. From there, he believes the polarity from the flare will flip the solid inner core and cause the earth to rotate in the opposite direction. I know this sounds rediculous, but people are fearful none the less. I apologize in advance for my silly questions  |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Jun 15, 2011 15:53:55 GMT
Hello Dr. Svalgaard, First off, I want to thank you for your work on Solar cycle 24. It has been extremely interesting to read about. I'm still extremely green on astronomy and solar physics, but one day I might catch on. I'm working on a 2012 blog dedicated to debunking the doomsday garbage. The blogs information will also be posted on 2012hoax.org. The number one concern I hear from people seems to be about the sun. Many 2012ers have used the sun as a platform to produce their nonsensical doomsday theories. Would it be ok if I asked you a few questions in particular of a goof ball named Patrick Geryl? He is convinced that Solar Cycle 24 will produce a killer flare that stems from a negative sunspot. He thinks this flare will enter at the south pole due to the 23.5 degree axial tilt. From there, he believes the polarity from the flare will flip the solid inner core and cause the earth to rotate in the opposite direction. I know this sounds rediculous, but people are fearful none the less. I apologize in advance for my silly questions That is sheer nonsense [you can quote me on that]. There are things that 'are not even wrong' [ rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong ]. |
|
