dc51
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 97
|
Post by dc51 on Apr 26, 2009 12:07:39 GMT
Hello Dr. Isvalgaard,
Since you are the one who tries to keep peoples feet on the ground on this site and WUWT. I am wondering at what stage did you consider that Livingston and Penn may be right and what is your view on Svensmark's theory and AGW in general?
DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 26, 2009 14:00:31 GMT
Hello Dr. Isvalgaard, Since you are the one who tries to keep peoples feet on the ground on this site and WUWT. I am wondering at what stage did you consider that Livingston and Penn may be right and what is your view on Svensmark's theory and AGW in general? DC. The jury is still out on L&P, but there is a good chance that they are on to something. My own thinking is perhaps biased by another puzzle, namely that cosmic ray proxies clearly indicate that there was a significant solar cycle present even through the Maunder Minimum. With no spots that is hard to explain, so when L&P first reported their measurements, it seems to me that they would provide a solution to that puzzle. Svensmark's theory does not IMHO hold up against the data, as there has been significant trends in temperature without any corresponding trend in cosmic rays. the theory is supposed to control climate through the albedo, but recent measurements of the albedo shows no solar cycle variation:  AGW: suffers from the same problem as Svensmark's theory, namely that the [recent] data does not seem to corroborate the theory. |
|
dc51
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 97
|
Post by dc51 on Apr 26, 2009 22:38:23 GMT
Thank you for your response, this is a wonderful machine, I am not a scientist of any kind, just have an interest in these things. So what we do know is that we've got a lot to learn and perhaps this minimum and the coming maximum is a unique opportunity to learn about the connections between solar activity and climate. It's just a pity the AGW crowd would'nt stick to science and wait before passing international agreements and passing laws.
Vukcevic,
i can clearly see the sunspot cycle in the lower part of the graph, but afraid, I don't understand the c14 oscillating lines??
|
|
|
|
Post by amarkscpa on Apr 28, 2009 17:37:20 GMT
Would appreciate comments on this "amplification factor" hypothesis.
__________________
The missing link, however, between solar activity and Earth's climate is "What is the amplification factor?" The total solar irradiance, or TSI, has shown to be very small and when you look at the amount of watts per meter that is delivered to the Earth's surface, the amount of change in total solar irradiance doesn't appear to be enough to cause such differences in the climate of the Earth.
However, what people are looking for now is an amplification factor sort of a climatic transistor, if you will. A transistor takes very small signals and amplifies them so they are audible which is why radios work. The theory has been bandied about that the same kind of process occurs in Earth's climate. A very small change in signal related to solar activity and we don't know which signal yet; it could be total solar irradiance, it could be ultraviolent; it could be magnetic; it could be cosmic rays; there are number of things that are being looked at -- gets amplified in Earth's natural processes and changes. That's what needs to be identified before a complete causal relationship is established between changes on the Sun's solar cycle and changes in Earth's climate... On the surface -- on a simple analysis -- one would think that. But again, the missing link is, what is the true causal relationship between changes in the Sun's solar cycle and Earth climate. Where's the amplification factor? Because just the change in the amount of sunlight that occurs doesn't appear to be enough to account for the observed changes in the past. So we are looking for that link.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 18:27:52 GMT
Would appreciate comments on this "amplification factor" hypothesis. __________________ The missing link, however, between solar activity and Earth's climate is "What is the amplification factor?" The total solar irradiance, or TSI, has shown to be very small and when you look at the amount of watts per meter that is delivered to the Earth's surface, the amount of change in total solar irradiance doesn't appear to be enough to cause such differences in the climate of the Earth. However, what people are looking for now is an amplification factor sort of a climatic transistor, if you will. A transistor takes very small signals and amplifies them so they are audible which is why radios work. The theory has been bandied about that the same kind of process occurs in Earth's climate. A very small change in signal related to solar activity and we don't know which signal yet; it could be total solar irradiance, it could be ultraviolent; it could be magnetic; it could be cosmic rays; there are number of things that are being looked at -- gets amplified in Earth's natural processes and changes. That's what needs to be identified before a complete causal relationship is established between changes on the Sun's solar cycle and changes in Earth's climate... On the surface -- on a simple analysis -- one would think that. But again, the missing link is, what is the true causal relationship between changes in the Sun's solar cycle and Earth climate. Where's the amplification factor? Because just the change in the amount of sunlight that occurs doesn't appear to be enough to account for the observed changes in the past. So we are looking for that link. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by tucker on Apr 28, 2009 19:19:31 GMT
Would appreciate comments on this "amplification factor" hypothesis. __________________ The missing link, however, between solar activity and Earth's climate is "What is the amplification factor?" The total solar irradiance, or TSI, has shown to be very small and when you look at the amount of watts per meter that is delivered to the Earth's surface, the amount of change in total solar irradiance doesn't appear to be enough to cause such differences in the climate of the Earth. However, what people are looking for now is an amplification factor sort of a climatic transistor, if you will. A transistor takes very small signals and amplifies them so they are audible which is why radios work. The theory has been bandied about that the same kind of process occurs in Earth's climate. A very small change in signal related to solar activity and we don't know which signal yet; it could be total solar irradiance, it could be ultraviolent; it could be magnetic; it could be cosmic rays; there are number of things that are being looked at -- gets amplified in Earth's natural processes and changes. That's what needs to be identified before a complete causal relationship is established between changes on the Sun's solar cycle and changes in Earth's climate... On the surface -- on a simple analysis -- one would think that. But again, the missing link is, what is the true causal relationship between changes in the Sun's solar cycle and Earth climate. Where's the amplification factor? Because just the change in the amount of sunlight that occurs doesn't appear to be enough to account for the observed changes in the past. So we are looking for that link. 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. You mean to tell me that you have a problem with a theory postulating undetectible cold fusion in Earth's core?? <note sarcasm meter twitching> We are at the bottom of the Marianas Trench for lows. Warm as well!! |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 19:39:49 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. You mean to tell me that you have a problem with a theory postulating undetectible cold fusion in Earth's core?? <note sarcasm meter twitching> We are at the bottom of the Marianas Trench for lows. Warm as well!! No, but with the idea that undetectable cold fusion influences our climate... |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 19:47:24 GMT
Dr Svalgard It is thought that Jupiter emits about two times as much energy as it receives from the Sun, suggestion is that this is due to the internal radiation, however Jupiter is a frozen planet. My approximate calculation show this to be about 3 x 10^18 joules/sec which is more then 16 times as much as the total energy the Earth itself receives from the Sun. What do you think is the source? Several sources. Heat left over from formation and gravitational contraction [the pressure is very large]. Jupiter has a rocky core [10-15 times bigger than the Earth], so radioactive heating like in the Earth. The interior is conductive so Ohmic dissipation of the dynamo currents. Probably the simple gravitational compression is the major source. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 20:06:54 GMT
[........ Probably the simple gravitational compression is the major source. Thanks for that. Jupiter’s magnetosphere is huge (extends to some 5 AU), so plenty of room for reconnection, at the tail end, with solar wind. Energy transferred during reconnection dissipates into heat. Could that be one of the major contributors ? Any numbers on the amount of solar wind energy per volume unit at 1 AU ? No to reconnection heating. 'Solar wind energy' is a bit undefined. It has potential energy [by being lifted out of the Sun's gravity well], relativistic energy [E=mc^2], kinetic energy [E=1/2mv^2], thermal energy [100,000 K], magnetic energy [B^2/8pi]. So which one(s) do you mean? |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 20:32:08 GMT
When you say ‘No to reconnection heating’ you mean, reconnection does not result into heat dissipation or amount is to small to count? On this particular point probably magnetic energy [B^2/8pi] since it is the one affected by reconnection; is that (B^2)/8pi ? Reconnection [as on the Earth] heats the upper atmosphere, not the interior of the planet. And is [as on the Earth] many orders of magnitude smaller than solar irradiance. B*B/(8pi) depending on your units. In mks [or SI] units it is B*B / (2munought). But I don't think you want that one either, as the energy for the interaction between the solar wind and a magnetosphere comes out of the kinetic energy of the solar wind. The energy the Earth draws from the solar wind every second is of the order of 10-1000 GigaWatt, or about 10% of the kinetic energy of the solar wind impacting the magnetosphere. Jupiter is 5 times further away, so the energy flux per square meter is 25 times smaller, but then the magnetosphere is much bigger so the energy impacting Jupiter is several orders of magnitudes higher anyway, but still way too small to have any effect. It is easy to calculate the precise numbers from kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass per cubic meter * speed (meter/second) squared. Then to get a flux per second, you multiply by the speed once more, because that many cubic meters go by per second. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 21:02:29 GMT
Thanks again. I never had in mind the planets interior ( I am not entirely ignorant) ! What I had in mind is thermal radiation (from reconnecting area would be dissipating radially, so part of it would impact upper atmosphere (either Earth’s or Jupiter’s). Just one more question (for time being): As a planet rotates its magnetosphere (if it had one) would be continuously be distorted on the day side (using a loose analogy of driving on a flat car tyre), one would assume certain amount of (magnetic ?) energy would required for that as well. Is that correct? Here I conclude my enquires. The thermal radiation is negligible [Earth or Jupiter]. The heating comes from particles accelerated by the changing magnetic configuration hitting the ambient atmosphere, or by ohmic dissipation of the resulting currents. The measured thermal radiation from Jupiter does not come from way out in the tail, but from the visible disk. The magnetosphere [and especially the long tail] does not rotate with the planet, except the innermost part of it. On Jupiter that inner portion is quite large and the co-rotation extends much further out [on all sides, not just dayside] than on the Earth. The energy for that comes from the rotation of the planet, not from the solar wind. If you are serious about this and can stand being disappointed about the result [not coming out what you want] one [i.e. I] can make a detailed calculation of the energetics. |
|
|
|
Post by vukcevic on Apr 28, 2009 21:34:03 GMT
No secrets there:
1. I was not certain about level of global thermal contribution; lower solar activity less recconection energy released.
2. My pet subject shall I say so-called ‘magnetospheric feedback’, an attempt to make a rough guess what proportion (however small) of the energy contained within solar wind may be taken out.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 21:59:08 GMT
No secrets there: 1. I was not certain about level of global thermal contribution; lower solar activity less recconection energy released. 2. My pet subject shall I say so-called ‘magnetospheric feedback’, an attempt to make a rough guess what proportion (however small) of the energy contained within solar wind may be taken out. Thanks. 2. at Jupiter the solar wind kinetic energy flux is 1/100,000 W/m2, only a small part of that goes into magnetic activity at Jupiter, say 1/1000,000 W/m2 [comparable fraction as for the Earth]. |
|
|
|
Post by lsvalgaard on Apr 28, 2009 22:02:41 GMT
Dr. Isvalgaard, Is there any indicate as to when Drs. Livingston and Penn will resubmit an updated version of their paper for publication? If the spotless streak continues the Journal Science is at best going to look incredibly foolish and at worst appear to be deliberately suppressing a paper of major importance. If Livingston and Penn are proven correct, the conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day and the exulted ranks of the Heroes of Science will have two new members. Mike Last I talked with Bill he said he was waiting for some 'real spots' [provided he gets any]. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by amarkscpa on Apr 28, 2009 22:12:49 GMT
Would appreciate comments on this "amplification factor" hypothesis. __________________ The missing link, however, between solar activity and Earth's climate is "What is the amplification factor?" The total solar irradiance, or TSI, has shown to be very small and when you look at the amount of watts per meter that is delivered to the Earth's surface, the amount of change in total solar irradiance doesn't appear to be enough to cause such differences in the climate of the Earth. However, what people are looking for now is an amplification factor sort of a climatic transistor, if you will. A transistor takes very small signals and amplifies them so they are audible which is why radios work. The theory has been bandied about that the same kind of process occurs in Earth's climate. A very small change in signal related to solar activity and we don't know which signal yet; it could be total solar irradiance, it could be ultraviolent; it could be magnetic; it could be cosmic rays; there are number of things that are being looked at -- gets amplified in Earth's natural processes and changes. That's what needs to be identified before a complete causal relationship is established between changes on the Sun's solar cycle and changes in Earth's climate... On the surface -- on a simple analysis -- one would think that. But again, the missing link is, what is the true causal relationship between changes in the Sun's solar cycle and Earth climate. Where's the amplification factor? Because just the change in the amount of sunlight that occurs doesn't appear to be enough to account for the observed changes in the past. So we are looking for that link. 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. |
|
