Starship Asterisk*

gpobserver wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

"And, of course, none of this has very much to do with the issue of global warming, the topic at hand."

Oh, of course not. Solar activity has absolutely nothing to do with climate variation, does it? How totally silly of anyone to think that maybe the sun would have some influence on terrestrial climate.

Your refusal to listen to what people have to say is so typical of those who misuse science to make their point.

Variations in solar activity play a minor to non-existent role in short term climate variation. Evidence correlating the two is weak at best. Indeed, solar activity can largely be ignored in discussions of the current upward trend in global temperatures- for the last century there has been no correlation at all between the two. It's just another straw man put up by those who are so dogmatically attached to ideas that they ignore real evidence.

BTW, the NCAR model has not been demonstrated false, since we aren't far enough into cycle 24 to know. So far, the only place it has been inaccurate is in predicting the timing of the beginning of the cycle- a point which is, in any case, highly arbitrary and difficult to define. The model may turn out to be quite good. Only time will tell.

mark swain wrote:North land mass. Has more land in its summer. The south of the planet has not much in its summer.. But this changes, our north summer at the moment we are further away from the sun. Has any body taken this into account?

Certainly. All the global circulation models include the distribution of oceans and land masses. They also include solar irradiance, which is determined in part by our distance from the Sun (i.e. the Earth's orbit is part of the models).

So we should be heading into ice age now. Snag is, when we head out of progression the earth will boil.
If people cant see this, we as a race are Doom - ed.

Mark

mark swain wrote:North land mass. Has more land in its summer. The south of the planet has not much in its summer.. But this changes, our north summer at the moment we are further away from the sun. Has any body taken this into account?

Mark

I think you are referring to the "precession of the equinoxes", a 26,000 year cycle. It is a factor along with other types of precession, elliptical variations and Sun cycles predicting ice age history patterns but is not an exclusive cause of an ice age.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Your refusal to listen to what people have to say is so typical of those who misuse science to make their point."

Oh, my goodness, Sir, you flatter me terribly. <blush> My humble abilities of scientific obfuscation and misdirection are but a pale shadow of your highly developed and practiced skills. I could never hope to match your accomplishments.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Variations in solar activity play a minor to non-existent role in short term climate variation. Evidence correlating the two is weak at best. Indeed, solar activity can largely be ignored in discussions of the current upward trend in global temperatures- for the last century there has been no correlation at all between the two. It's just another straw man put up by those who are so dogmatically attached to ideas that they ignore real evidence."

My, such a sweeping assertion. I should be most grateful for a couple of citations in support of your contention that there is no correlation between solar activity and climate variations during the past century. My feeble efforts to research the matter quickly produced papers and datasets contradicting your assertion of a lack of a correlation:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Kyoto_- ... _Dr.8d.pdf (I met Dr. Baliunas in the 1980's and provided some small instrumentation support for her astrophysical researches. I have a very high regard for her intellect and scientific credentials.)

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/I ... VsTemp.gif There is some suggestion that perhaps atmospheric aerosol loads may have depressed temperatures during the third quarter of the century: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/aerosol.gif (Don't let the "junkscience" website name distract from the fact that the source data comes from some very highly reputable origins).

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/geoev.pdf (very good!)

Chris Peterson wrote:

"BTW, the NCAR model has not been demonstrated false, since we aren't far enough into cycle 24 to know. So far, the only place it has been inaccurate is in predicting the timing of the beginning of the cycle- a point which is, in any case, highly arbitrary and difficult to define. The model may turn out to be quite good. Only time will tell."

I must conclude that you've never met a computer model you didn't like. The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has tossed the model aside: http://www.spaceweather.com/headlines/y ... iction.htm
They're projecting a very weak cycle.

See also: http://things.auditblogs.com/2009/05/29 ... rediction/

As a skeptic of the AGW hypothesis, I think I am in good company: http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from- ... ptics.html
The IPCC promoters of the AGW hypothesis are commented upon at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/ ... yself.html

Much is said of the science of the AGW hypothesis. How about some discussion of its morality?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Driesse ... ty-web.pdf

gpobserver wrote:The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has tossed the model aside: http://www.spaceweather.com/headlines/y ... iction.htm
They're projecting a very weak cycle.

No, they haven't. They are using a different model. But since you don't understand what a computer model even is, I wouldn't expect you to understand this, either.

Solar activity prediction is in its infancy. These models are not nearly as good as climate models, which are quite good. Of course, since you think solar variation is important in recent climate trends, you don't understand either climate models or observational data. But that is typical of anti-AGW folks.

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Of course, since you think solar variation is important in recent climate trends, you don't understand either climate models or observational data. But that is typical of anti-AGW folks."

Oh, that's ok. You apparently don't understand what a citation is either. I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that there is no correlation between solar activity and climate during the 20th century. Or perhaps you think merely asserting something with a tone of authority makes it true?

Chris Peterson wrote:

"Solar activity prediction is in its infancy. These models are not nearly as good as climate models." How about some citations to back that up, please? Sounds like more of your grand pronouncements and pontification (translation: "baloney") to me.

gpobserver wrote:Oh, that's ok. You apparently don't understand what a citation is either. I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that there is no correlation between solar activity and climate during the 20th century. Or perhaps you think merely asserting something with a tone of authority makes it true?

No, but I don't know how to cite negative evidence. I haven't seen anything to demonstrate that a correlation exists. You'll have to do better than Baliunas, whose work has been totally discredited. She has demonstrated that she lacks any competence in climate analysis. I'd be interested in a reference to some recent work showing a strong correlation between solar activity and changes in global temperature over the last few decades, but I don't think it exists. As near as I can tell, every study that shows some correlation also concludes that the impact is fairly small compared with the impact of CO2. Not surprising, of course, since the carbon connection is essentially obvious.

gpobserver wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

"Solar activity prediction is in its infancy. These models are not nearly as good as climate models." How about some citations to back that up, please?

To back up what?

Chris Peterson wrote:

"No, but I don't know how to cite negative evidence."

It's called falsification of a hypothesis. It's part of that Scientific Method thing. Try looking for something that shows the two records and the two don't look anything like each other. Would you like for me to help?

Chris Peterson wrote:

" I haven't seen anything to demonstrate that a correlation exists."

Well, I guess it's the old "You can lead a horse to water..." routine. Am I just wasting my time looking up citations?

Chris Peterson wrote:

"You'll have to do better than Baliunas, whose work has been totally discredited. She has demonstrated that she lacks any competence in climate analysis."

Citations, please?

Chris Peterson wrote:

"To back up what?"

This is getting tedious. To back up your assertion that "Solar activity prediction is in its infancy. These models are not nearly as good as climate models". You're not just making this up as you go along, are you?

Now I know why global warming is happening, and why it does not correlate with solar activity...

It's these APOD discussions. They are full of heat, with little light cast on the point of discussion.

You heard it here first.

Rob

gpobserver wrote: Chris Peterson wrote:

"To back up what?"

This is getting tedious. To back up your assertion that "Solar activity prediction is in its infancy. These models are not nearly as good as climate models". You're not just making this up as you go along, are you?

There were two statements, and I don't know which you are asking support for. However, it seems obvious. Nobody has successfully predicted both the beginning and peak of two successive solar cycles. The solar physics isn't well understood, so the predictions are based primarily at looking for correlations without much underlying physical basis (what you like to call curve fitting). Climate models don't depend on that at all, but are simply the rigorous solution of physical theory. The history of solar cycle prediction reveals that it doesn't work very well. Climate models, on the other hand, are very successful at describing the past, and are doing a fine job with the present.

Mr. Peterson,

That's just hand-waving. You're not making any serious attempts to substantiate any of your grand pronouncements with references. "Because I say so" doesn't lend your arguments much weight.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

gpobserver wrote:Mr. Peterson,

That's just hand-waving. You're not making any serious attempts to substantiate any of your grand pronouncements with references. "Because I say so" doesn't lend your arguments much weight.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

I'm not a scientist, but what sort of citations would you expect for what appear to be opinions about the state of the art?

Do you disagree that "Solar activity prediction is in its infancy" or that solar prediction "models are not nearly as good as climate models"?

- Dick

dduggan47 wrote:

"I'm not a scientist, but what sort of citations would you expect for what appear to be opinions about the state of the art?

Do you disagree that "Solar activity prediction is in its infancy" or that solar prediction "models are not nearly as good as climate models"?

Hello Mr. Duggan,

My complaint is that Mr. Peterson has a habit of expressing his personal opinions as if they were absolute fact without any support from references, attribution, or citation. The sun has been studied intensely for decades. Indeed, in times past I was involved with the National Solar Observatory's GONG helioseismology program. A star is, from a physical perspective, a much simpler system than the terrestrial climate system. All its energy comes from within, you don't have to worry about its albedo, continents, ocean, CO2, methane, clouds, precipitation, or anthropogenic effects. An amoeba is probably more complicated than the sun (personal opinion, Tucker 2009). Much is known about the sun. Consider such authoritative works as Sonnet et al. "The Sun In Time", http://www.amazon.com/Time-University-A ... 0816512973. The earth's climate system, a far more complex system, has been the subject truly intensive computer modeling for the past couple of decades. I have no idea which is better modeled or on what basis one would make such assessments. If Mr. Peterson has encountered literature that makes such judgements I would be interested in learning of it rather than relying upon his personal opinion. I have no idea upon what he bases such a pronouncement. I would, however, object to dismissing the modeling of solar activity as being in its infancy and would seek justification of that statement, again based upon some literature reference and/or quailification of exactly what is meant by that assessment.

This is supposed to be a scientific debate, based upon demonstrable facts, not personal opinions. Mr. Peterson also has a nasty habit of resorting to ad hominem attacks when pressed on a point. I am quite happy to keep the discussion polite and rational until someone launches a personal smear.

Thank you for your interest, Mr. Duggan. I hope my response was substantive and helpful.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

gpobserver wrote:The sun has been studied intensely for decades. Indeed, in times past I was involved with the National Solar Observatory's GONG helioseismology program. A star is, from a physical perspective, a much simpler system than the terrestrial climate system. All its energy comes from within, you don't have to worry about its albedo, continents, ocean, CO2, methane, clouds, precipitation, or anthropogenic effects.

That may turn out to be true, but I think it's far from certain. The current understanding of the origin and behavior of the Sun's magnetic field, and the interactions between that field and plasma at various depths, is very poor. It's only recently that helioseismology has become advanced enough to start making some serious measurements (it was a pipe dream when I was at Big Bear Solar Observatory in the late 1970s).

If I were making a positive claim about predicting solar cycles, I can see how you'd like some evidence. But what I said was that models for such predictions are poor. If you disagree, point me towards something that suggests otherwise- I haven't seen it. In case you haven't noticed, people don't generally publish papers describing the ways in which we lack knowledge.

gpobserver wrote:Hello Mr. Duggan,

Hi Mr. Tucker,

gpobserver wrote:Thank you for your interest, Mr. Duggan. I hope my response was substantive and helpful.

Absolutely. My interest in this has been to learn a little more about the subject.

gpobserver wrote:Mr. Peterson also has a nasty habit of resorting to ad hominem attacks when pressed on a point.

I've been following this discussion from the day it started but I haven't kept track of who said what. I think you're probably right but I also think that he's a long way from being the worst offender. You imply that you've been polite and I certainly haven't noticed anything to the contrary (... and I'm not going to go back and look! ), so thank you for that.

gpobserver wrote:My complaint is that Mr. Peterson has a habit of expressing his personal opinions as if they were absolute fact without any support from references, attribution, or citation.

Gosh, don't we all? I personally thought it was apparent that those were opinions. I also agree with Mr. P. that it might be difficult to find research on the level of infancy of research in a field. OTOH I'm not a researcher.

You also wrote that the sun is a simpler system. (I'm tempted to ask for a citation! ) I'll take your word for it but is it better understood than climate or even weather? That's not a shot, it's a real question.

As for the citation you did provide, I promise to read it in its entirety when you send me $85. Can you paraphrase relevant passages?

If I'm smart now I'll go back to lurking. I'm well over my head.

- Dick

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.[1] The IPCC also concludes that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

dduggan47 wrote:

"gpobserver wrote:
Mr. Peterson also has a nasty habit of resorting to ad hominem attacks when pressed on a point.

I've been following this discussion from the day it started but I haven't kept track of who said what. I think you're probably right but I also think that he's a long way from being the worst offender. You imply that you've been polite and I certainly haven't noticed anything to the contrary (... and I'm not going to go back and look! ), so thank you for that."

If it was implied, I shouldn't have. I have tried to be polite and civil but I have occasionally failed, much to my embarrassment and chagrin. In one instance I was unecessarily rude to Mr. Mark Swain for which I shortly afterward apologized. I am only human and being addressed rudely does wear upon my patience. It is unfortunate that the global climate debate has become so politicized and emotionally charged. I am reminded of the "blue eye/brown eye" experiment of years ago ( http://www.janeelliott.com/, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/ ). Some of the uglier aspects of human nature were revealed by this experiment. I'm of the opinion that this video, "A Class Divided", should be required viewing for all students, everywhere.

dduggan47 wrote:

"You also wrote that the sun is a simpler system. (I'm tempted to ask for a citation! ) I'll take your word for it but is it better understood than climate or even weather? That's not a shot, it's a real question."

A citation? Oh, goodness... I read this in an astrophysics text so long ago I couldn't recall which one. However, let's look at the facts. The sun's composition is principally hydrogen and helium with a small amount of heavier elements (referred to simply as 'metals' in astrophysics). This material was condensed from the interstellar medium of a neighborhood of the galaxy as it existed 4.6 billion years ago, approximately eight billion years after the Big Bang or whatever event it was that started our universe. At the time of the formation of our galaxy, the elemental composition of the universe was principally hydrogen, helium, and a bit of lithium. There was no significant production of elements heavier than lithium due to the very short lifetime (0.067 femtoseconds) of the radioactive isotope Be-8, formed when two helium nuclei collide with sufficient energy. The Be-8 would usually decay before another hydrogen or helium nuclei could fuse with it, producing a heavier nucleus. Lithium is a fossil element left over from the Big Bang. Nuclear reactions in stars only destroy it.

The sun's composition is generally pretty homogeneous except as you approach the core where the abundance of helium is being increased by nucleosynthesis. The sun is entirely a plasma, an electrically-conducting fluid, which is influenced by electric and magnetic fields in ways explained by classical electrodynamics. The nuclear reactions occurring at the core are generally well-understood and our understanding has been assisted by the observations of neutrinos produced by those reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino). The internal structure of the sun has been studied by means of helioseismology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology, http://gong.nso.edu/info/helioseismology.html). Energy is transported from the nuclear reactions in the core, first by radiation in the deeper regions of the sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer), and then by convection nearer the surface. The size of a star is a balancing act between the force of gravity tending to compress the volume of compressible plasma and expansion produced by the internal heat source warming the plasma. There is some influence on this energy transport due to the 'metals' in the composition of the star increasing the 'opacity' of the material in the same way that so-called Greenhouse Gases do in our atmosphere. The luminosity of a Main Sequence (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... errus.html) star is almost entirely a function of the total mass of the star.

As mentioned before, there are no continents, no oceans, no solid surface, no clouds, no precipitation, no biology, no chemistry, no external heat sources warming the surface (except for multiple star systems). About the only thing complicating this simple picture is the rotation of a star which introduces coriolis forces that influence the convection of the atmosphere. As simple as a star is, it is still difficult to predict many of its behaviors because of their chaotic nature. The course of future activity is sensitively dependent upon initial starting conditions. Yes, I will assert that a star is much simpler than a planet and its climate system. Simple but still difficult to predict in many ways. I am reminded of what we used to say in experimental biology, "Under precisely controlled and duplicated experimental and environmental conditions, an experimental animal will do whatever it damned well pleases."

dduggan47 wrote:

"As for the citation you did provide, I promise to read it in its entirety when you send me $85. Can you paraphrase relevant passages?"

Oh my! My intent was to present that as a thousand page example of the volume of knowledge we have of the sun and its history. After all these years I still haven't read all of my copy.

dduggan47 wrote:

"If I'm smart now I'll go back to lurking. I'm well over my head."

An important thing is to never stop seeking new knowledge.

I've enjoyed chatting with you, Sir.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

Chris Peterson wrote:

"If I were making a positive claim about predicting solar cycles, I can see how you'd like some evidence. But what I said was that models for such predictions are poor. If you disagree, point me towards something that suggests otherwise- I haven't seen it. "

I was unhappy with the use of the imprecise term "infancy", knowing that people have been thinking about understanding stars and the sun for a long time. With regard to the quality of model predictions, we are in agreement. The models have done a poor job of predicting the current state of solar activity. My point is that the terrestrial climate system is much more complicated, for all of the factors that I have mentioned and many more that I haven't. I seek to encourage you and others who are following this discussion to question your confidence in the climate models that are being used to promote the role of CO2 as the principal controlling agent of terrestrial climate. Permit me to point out that CO2 alone is not capable of producing the warming that is claimed. It is hypothesized that there is a positive feedback phenomenon, usually involving an enhancement of water vapor, that explains how CO2 can have such a great effect. This feedback phenomenon is not proven. Allow me to draw your attention to the presentation by Dr. Richard Lindzen today at the ICCC: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... dzen-3.ppt

"In case you haven't noticed, people don't generally publish papers describing the ways in which we lack knowledge."

It's a matter of practicality. That would truly be an enormous body of literature. It would provide an abundance of useful citations, though.

Best regards,
- Roy Tucker

gpobserver wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:

"If I were making a positive claim about predicting solar cycles, I can see how you'd like some evidence. But what I said was that models for such predictions are poor. If you disagree, point me towards something that suggests otherwise- I haven't seen it. "

I was unhappy with the use of the imprecise term "infancy"...

It would be greatly appreciated if you'd take advantage of the quoting features of this forum. The way you intersperse quotes and your own comments throughout your posts makes it almost impossible to separate your own material from what you are quoting.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... .html#more

...The simulations show that the effects of cosmic rays from the sun are barely 1% of what they'd have to be to explain what we've seen. The scientists are even one step ahead of the "maybe-sorta" game, admitting their simulations can't account for everything that exists, because nothing could ever do that (including their opponents' arguments), but pointing out that nothing omitted or missed could skew the results enough to appreciably alter the results.

If given a choice between a model that says solar activity has nothing to do with terrestrial climate and datasets that do show a correlation, I'd go with the actual observations. A simulation is not a substitute for actual data and observations.

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_C ... limate.pdf