|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 4, 2013 17:17:58 GMT
|
|
|
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 justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2013 6:57:26 GMT
Thanks.
How big is the variance and will it help the studies if it gets larger? Namely, if we do enter a quiescent phase on the sun will the increase in cosmic rays make studying this easier or are you confident in current data? So, essentially, how big is your confidence window on your current data? The paper you cite does point to continued controversy so more data might put this to bed.
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 5, 2013 12:15:31 GMT
Data is fine. We just need more of it.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 5, 2013 23:30:08 GMT
Well, the planet and the sun may be running one heck of an experiment as we speak. Lets talk in a decade or two.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 8, 2013 14:54:34 GMT
Leif-
Are we sure micro-spots like 1838 have been counted previously?
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 8, 2013 21:40:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 9, 2013 1:31:55 GMT
|
|
bigbud
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 180
|
Post by bigbud on Sept 16, 2013 7:08:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 17, 2013 1:54:07 GMT
|
|
bigbud
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 180
|
Post by bigbud on Sept 17, 2013 6:19:56 GMT
super, thanx a lot Leif
|
|
bigbud
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 180
|
Post by bigbud on Sept 30, 2013 10:50:34 GMT
Hi Leif I have a question about identifying solar maximum. The normal indicator is the 13 month smoothed sunspot number. But are there other alternative indicators, using other parameters than monthly sunspot number? And are there records of such indicators (dates for maximum)? For example - how excact can the shifting of poles be identifyed, and are there historical records of the dates of pole shifts? Or others like sunspot latitude, flares, polar faculae and so on... JAn
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Sept 30, 2013 16:47:29 GMT
Solar maximum is a 'woolly' concept and it may not make much sense to try to pin a time down to within a month. The reversal of the polar fields is, perhaps, a more physical parameter. See: www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf for more on this.
|
|
bigbud
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 180
|
Post by bigbud on Oct 1, 2013 6:53:00 GMT
thank you Leif At what point will the 2012 solar maximum in 13 month sunspot number be declared as solar maximum? Looks like double tops in the sunspot cycle typically are up to ~2 years apart... so if we dont have a higher peak winter 2014, will that signal that solar maximum was 2012?
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Oct 3, 2013 11:57:24 GMT
thank you Leif At what point will the 2012 solar maximum in 13 month sunspot number be declared as solar maximum? Looks like double tops in the sunspot cycle typically are up to ~2 years apart... so if we dont have a higher peak winter 2014, will that signal that solar maximum was 2012? Look at the red curve for SC14 on www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png it has four peaks. It would be hard to justify calling any of them the maximum. A well-defined maximum may not be meaningful.
|
|