mrmga
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by mrmga on Mar 1, 2009 17:38:53 GMT
In his November 2008 paper titled "Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing", Nir Shaviv claims to have found evidence that some mechanism must be amplifying changes in TSI by a magnitude of 5 to 7 times. He is unable to identify the specific mechanism, but leans toward Svensmark's cosmic ray theory. I never heard of this paper until it was featured on a couple of skeptic's blogs a couple days ago. For example see: motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/nir-shaviv-solar-fluctuations-are.htmlHave any of the experts on this board actually read Shaviv's paper? (I'm too cheap to spend $9.00 on an article I probably won't understand anyway.) What do you think of it? What about Nir Shaviv? Is he really the "boy genius" some have called him?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 1, 2009 18:10:54 GMT
mrmga writes "Have any of the experts on this board actually read Shaviv's paper? (I'm too cheap to spend $9.00 on an article I probably won't understand anyway.) What do you think of it? What about Nir Shaviv? Is he really the "boy genius" some have called him?"
I am no expert, and I have not read the paper, but I am convinced Nir Shaviv is absolutely correct.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 1, 2009 18:15:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 1, 2009 21:33:27 GMT
And the step changes coincide with the solar cycles.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 1, 2009 22:28:29 GMT
And the step changes coincide with the solar cycles. Funny that - everything seems to be driven by the Sun - who'd've thought it
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 2, 2009 1:31:05 GMT
I have not had a chance to read and study this paper in its entirety, but what I have read so far is very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 2, 2009 7:47:12 GMT
mrmga writes "Have any of the experts on this board actually read Shaviv's paper? (I'm too cheap to spend $9.00 on an article I probably won't understand anyway.) What do you think of it? What about Nir Shaviv? Is he really the "boy genius" some have called him?" I am no expert, and I have not read the paper, but I am convinced Nir Shaviv is absolutely correct. That's funny, Jim There is also a paper by Stott et al who calculate that the solar influence on climate appears to be about 3 times that expected from TSI alone. So Shaviv is not out of line with the folk who run the models that contribute to the IPCC process. Do models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change? PA STOTT, GS JONES, JFB MITCHELL - Journal of climate, 2003
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Mar 2, 2009 14:00:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 2, 2009 14:59:25 GMT
mrmga writes "Have any of the experts on this board actually read Shaviv's paper? (I'm too cheap to spend $9.00 on an article I probably won't understand anyway.) What do you think of it? What about Nir Shaviv? Is he really the "boy genius" some have called him?" I am no expert, and I have not read the paper, but I am convinced Nir Shaviv is absolutely correct. That's funny, Jim There is also a paper by Stott et al who calculate that the solar influence on climate appears to be about 3 times that expected from TSI alone. So Shaviv is not out of line with the folk who run the models that contribute to the IPCC process. Do models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change? PA STOTT, GS JONES, JFB MITCHELL - Journal of climate, 2003 Ah yes, Stott and Jones. We can always count on Met O's "spot on" accurate consistent predictions and unbiased objective reports www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080925.htmlPlease humor us and show how Shaviv has verified climate models in IPCC AR4. He has been very consistent in his previous work stating the climate sensitivity to CO2 is much overstated. Also, if you'd bother to notice, Solar is listed as Low LOSU in IPCC AR4. An 'order of magnitude' is _____? What Shaviv's latest work has done is to support a more realistic source for ocean warming via SW solar radiation rather than the perpetual motion explanation given from LW IR re-emiitance, an unphysical mechanism. To say the enormous amount of OHC as quoted by Hansen et al 2005 (the "smoking gun") for 1993-2003 as proof of AGW is more than a stretch, it is pseudoscience, not mention not happening. To wit: That is the IPCC basis for their conclusions. Show me where that statement is supported by observational evidence and you've won me over. Next we have Dessler 2008 (runaway water vapor feedback), a complete and utter perversion of the so-called "peer review" process. How this garbage ever sees the light of day is amazing.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 2, 2009 20:24:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 4, 2009 4:19:51 GMT
Ken, What if the energy is not from light and infrared? It would have snuck past those satellites wouldn't it. Have a look at the reports from the Themis satellites on the energy inputs that are not light. The measures in the paper from Nir Shaviv were of ocean heat content which correlated directly with the phases of activity of the Sun- the fact that your cites did not identify IR/visible spectrum changes, means that perhaps another energy source is involved. Science doesn't really mix well with firmly held views.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 4, 2009 4:31:54 GMT
What if the energy is not from light and infrared? It would have snuck past those satellites wouldn't it. Have a look at the reports from the Themis satellites on the energy inputs that are not light. The measures in the paper from Nir Shaviv were of ocean heat content which correlated directly with the phases of activity of the Sun- the fact that your cites did not identify IR/visible spectrum changes, means that perhaps another energy source is involved. Science doesn't really mix well with firmly held views. Or, what if the outer atmosphere shrank in by 2.7%, significantly reducing the capture cross section for UV...oh wait, it just did that recently.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 7, 2009 0:24:58 GMT
Or, what if the outer atmosphere shrank in by 2.7%, significantly reducing the capture cross section for UV...oh wait, it just did that recently. You've got that backwards -- the current solar minimum is why the atmosphere has contracted. That's the "proof" that the giant ball of fire in the sky impacts the atmosphere in more ways than just making flowers grow ...
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 7, 2009 0:45:51 GMT
Or, what if the outer atmosphere shrank in by 2.7%, significantly reducing the capture cross section for UV...oh wait, it just did that recently. You've got that backwards -- the current solar minimum is why the atmosphere has contracted. That's the "proof" that the giant ball of fire in the sky impacts the atmosphere in more ways than just making flowers grow ... That was my point...It's a result of lower UV (although that may not be the only factor). This lower atmosphere has significantly reduced the capture cross-section of the earth. It's a readily observable (and OBSERVED) mechanism to amplify the affect of the solar cycle. I believe they also noted an increase in the height of the outer atmosphere between the 70's and 80's as that stronger cycle cranked up.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Mar 7, 2009 0:53:13 GMT
You've got that backwards -- the current solar minimum is why the atmosphere has contracted. That's the "proof" that the giant ball of fire in the sky impacts the atmosphere in more ways than just making flowers grow ... That was my point...It's a result of lower UV (although that may not be the only factor). This lower atmosphere has significantly reduced the capture cross-section of the earth. It's a readily observable (and OBSERVED) mechanism to amplify the affect of the solar cycle. I believe they also noted an increase in the height of the outer atmosphere between the 70's and 80's as that stronger cycle cranked up. Uh, it's a result of a heck of a lot more than just lower UV. The atmosphere expands a boat load if there is a geo-effective CME and any number of other events that happen during a lively solar cycle. See "Bastille Day Solar Flare" courtesy of Google. The size of the atmosphere is a very good indicator of the total energy within the atmosphere. A shrinking atmosphere pretty much means less total energy.
|
|