Re: Maunder Minimum
El Castor
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
>
>Maunder Minimum
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>(Redirected from Maunder minimum)
>Jump to: navigation, search
>The Maunder minimum in a 400 year history of sunspot numbers
>The Maunder minimum in a 400 year history of sunspot numbers
>
>The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645
>to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar
>observers of the time. It is named after the solar astronomer Edward
>W. Maunder (1851–1928) who discovered the dearth of sunspots during
>that period by studying records from those years. During one 30-year
>period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed
>only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000–50,000
>spots.
>
>The Maunder Minimum occurred between 1645 and 1715 when only about 50
>spots appeared as opposed to the typical 40,000–50,000 spots. The
>minima counts for 10-year periods from 1610–1681 are as follows:
>Decade Sunspots
>1610 9
>1620 6
>1630 9
>1640 2
>1650 3
>1660 1
>1670 0
>1680 1
>
>During the Maunder Minimum enough sunspots were sighted so that
>11-year cycles could be extrapolated from the count. The maxima
>occurred in 1674, 1684, 1695, 1705 and 1716.
>
>The sunspot activity was then concentrated in the southern hemisphere
>of the Sun, except for the last cycle when the sunspots appeared in
>the northern hemisphere too.
>
>According to Spörer's law, at the start of a cycle spots appear at
>ever lower latitudes, until they average at about lat. 15° at solar
>maximum. The average then continues to drift lower to about 7° and
>after that, while spots of the old cycle fade, new cycle spots start
>appearing again at high latitudes.
>
>The visibility of these spots is also affected by the velocity of the
>sun's rotation at various latitudes:
>Solar
>latitude Rotation period
>(days)
>0° 24.7
>35° 26.7
>40° 28.0
>75° 33.0
>
>Visibility is somewhat affected by observations being done from the
>ecliptic. The ecliptic is inclined 7° from the plane of the Sun's
>equator (latitude 0°).
>
>[edit] Little Ice Age
>
>The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle — and coldest part — of
>the so-called Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America,
>and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly
>cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot
>activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate (e.g. see
>Global Warming).
>
>
>The lower solar activity during the Maunder Minimum also affected the
>amount of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth. The resulting change in
>the production of carbon-14 during that period caused an inaccuracy in
>radiocarbon dating until this effect was discovered.
>Graph showing proxies of solar activity, including changes in sunspot
>number and cosmogenic isotope production.
>Graph showing proxies of solar activity, including changes in sunspot
>number and cosmogenic isotope production.
>
>Solar activity also affects the production of beryllium-10, and
>variations in that cosmogenic isotope are studied as a proxy for solar
>activity.
>
>Other historical sunspot minima have been detected either directly or
>by the analysis of carbon-14 in ice cores or tree rings; these include
>the Sporer Minimum (1450–1540), and less markedly the Dalton Minimum
>(1790–1820). In total there seem to have been 18 periods of sunspot
>minima in the last 8,000 years, and studies indicate that the sun
>currently spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima.
>
>One recently published paper, based on an analysis of a Flamsteed
>drawing, suggests that the Sun's rotation slowed in the deep Maunder
>minimum (1666–1700).[1]
Europe got so cold that the Thames froze. A Russian astronomer
believes we are approaching another Maunder Minimum which will be on
us before the middle of the century. The past southern hemisphere
winter was the coldest in many years in South America, and Antarctic
ice extended further north than it has since record keeping began in
1979.
I live near the Pacific at the foot of a mountain. That mountain just
got the first snow in six years. Search Google news for record cold
and you get 13,000 hits.
Alvin E. Toda
IIRC the Sun may have different rates of rotation
depending on what part of the atmosphere you look at. A
little like our jet streams on earth at high altitudes.
But since the magnetic field is locked into the solar
atmosphere-- with high ionization-- the motion affects
other inner and outer layers too, and tends to wind up
the magnetic field concentrating it and producing sun
spots.
It's amazing that there's still no good theory of
sunspots. Last interesting one I heard was a quadapole
theory-- ie two curents or a stack of two
magnetic dipoles to produce the sun's magnetic field.
Every sunspot cycle is produced when the quadrupole
deforms and expands. Some of the expanded parts pop out
and produce sunspots. The polarity of the sunspots and
changes in sunspot polarity in the sunspot eleven year
cycle is explained by this theory. But it was too crude
a theory when I heard about it about 40 years ago.
The sun's particle streams don't contribute as much
energy to the earth as it light does, so sunspot
variations in particle streams don't have much of an
effect on our climate. Neither does changes in
luminance from sunspots. Sunspot variations don't
affect the average solar constant (I hope redundancy
helps here, because the constant is an aver. An average
of an average makes no sense, but it does emphasize
that it is an average to those who don't believe so).
Billy Maxwell
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent
world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand
impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so
drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time
in a decade.
'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an
employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also
sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line.
'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has
made the area miserably cold.'
Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the
frigid temperatures common a decade ago.
Temperatures plunged to -25°C earlier this month, clogging the
bay with ice and making shipping impossible for small crafts,
according to Anthon Frederiksen, the mayor of the town of
Ilulissat, where Disko Bay is located.
--
The "Surge" is working.
Billy Maxwell
Jan. 10 - We've been experiencing the low ebb, "very few
flares, sunspots, or activity of any kind," says David
Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. "Solar minimum
is upon us."
Jan. 25 - Sixteen consecutive days with no visible sunspots
and still counting.
El Castor
Here's an interesting web page which discusses the relationship of the
sun to the Maunder Minimum. The site is sponsored by Sami Solanki, a
well respected solar physicist.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/sunearth.html
Alvin E. Toda
Most of us who don't try to check for sunspots haven't
noticed the minimum. Hard to believe sunspots have any
effect on us here on the planet Earth. Is this a little
like claiming the sky is falling....?
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
During the "Little Ice Age" (Maunder Minimum) there
were very few sunspots, from 1645 to 1715 according
to:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
Steven
You have got to be joking!
Alvin E. Toda
Just a coincidence. I don't think that anyone seriously
believes in the sunspot theory. The solar constant was
probably the same then as it is now.
Alvin E. Toda
You're over the top on this....
El Castor
wrote:
Dr. Sami Solanki, Director of the Sun and Heliosphere Department of
the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research believes sunspots
are a proxy for solar activity, which in his opinion and in the
opinion of many other astro-physicists, is quite capable of directly
influencing the Earth's climate. Two sources of influence -- UV
radiation which affects the chemistry of the Earth's upper atmosphere
and changes in the sun's magnetosphere. In addition to sunspots, "good
correlations have been found between different proxies of solar
activity and climate records, for example, between the concentration
of Carbon 14 in tree rings and glacier fluctuations".
http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/variability.html
Interestingly, Solanki believes that the sun has reached an unusually
intense peak of activity which he thinks will decline over the next
50+ years. Perhaps that decline has already begun. Last summer saw one
of the coldest winters in decades in South America.
"Argentina's capital, Buenos Aires, has seen snow for the first time
in 89 years, as a cold snap continues to grip several South American
nations. Temperatures plunged to -22C (-8F) in parts of Argentina's
province of Rio Negro, while snow fell on Buenos Aires for several
hours on Monday. Two deaths from exposure were reported in Argentina
and one in Chile. In Bolivia, heavy snowfall blocked the nation's main
motorway and forced the closure of several airports. In Argentina,
several provinces in the Andes have been placed under a storm alert,
according to the national weather centre. But thousands of people
cheered in the streets of Buenos Aires at the sight of the capital's
first snowfall since 1918. "Despite all my years, this is the first
time I've ever seen snow in Buenos Aires," 82-year-old Juana Benitez
was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286484.stm
"... we believe that temperatures are beginning to cool again,
particularly in north- central Canada where this summer there was only
about 2 weeks between damaging freezes from late June into mid-July."
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GlobalWarming.htm
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I don't think that's the case here. El Castor has posted
a reply, which I was hoping was not one of his loony rants
but perhaps it is, since it seems to be focussed on being
a propaganda piece against global warming.
Here's a wikipedia article that seems in line with other
stuff I've read, about sunspots being associated with
cooler solar radiance, which seems a bit more balanced
and not just a propaganda piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Alvin E. Toda
There you have it Rumple. Is the minimum when there are
the least sunspots? The sun's iradiance should be
greater than. Yes and Jeff is ranting. What you
probably mean is that yes sunspots are cooler because
their surface temperatures are cooler. But doesn't mean
that a sunspot has a significant effect on the solar
constant. The sun would have to be one giant sunspot
for that to happen.
Steven
The most famous *solar*-caused *outage* came in 1989, when a coronal
mass ejection knocked out power to a wide area of Quebec for nine hours.
In 1998, during the buildup to the most recent *solar* maximum, magnetic
activity was linked to the failure of the Galaxy 4 *satellite*
<http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/eisbaker.html>, which led to
widespread communications outages.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I gather from general reading that sunspots are a
symptom of a cooler sun rather than a cause of it.
I guess nobody knows for sure yet though. It's a
bit unnerving to think that the sun could vary much
in its heat output, but as long as it stays within limits
I guess it would work out. The fact that life has
been on earth for three billion years or more
indicates that our sun at least, if not others, has
been stable enough over that time. Whatever
hell we're raising on earth, at least it isn't going to
affect the sun. I guess our atmosphere would
have a dampening effect on moderate solar
fluctuations.
El Castor
wrote:
Have you read Dr. Solanki's comments on sun spots and solar activity?.
Obviously not. Here's another excellent source on the subject, Dr. Nir
Shaviv. http://www.sciencebits.com/
I would remind you that the Earth has gone through many periods of
warming and cooling -- without benefit of anthropogenic CO2.
Afraid of views that might conflict with your own?
Alvin E. Toda
The solar constant is a well measured figure for over a
century. And sunspots are a symtom of a more active
sun-- stronger flares and magnetic fields and more
energy put out in the form of particle streams. The
strong magnetic fields surpress gas motion also lower
the temperature of the gas. Whether an active sun is
theoretically cooler is still debatable since the data
doesn't show that. Solar constant doesn't change in a
year with a lot of sunspots. Try doing one of those
pinhole thingys to see the sun. A lot of times there
can be a tinny winny spot. In absolute terms the earth
could fit in the area, but wrt the sun it's so small
that you might miss seeing it if you weren't expecting
a black dot that would move with the image.
Alvin E. Toda
> Have you read Dr. Solanki's comments on sun spots and
> solar activity?. Obviously not. Here's another
> excellent source on the subject, Dr. Nir Shaviv.
> http://www.sciencebits.com/
>
> I would remind you that the Earth has gone through
> many periods of warming and cooling -- without
> benefit of anthropogenic CO2.
>
> Afraid of views that might conflict with your own?
Sorry I just can't take such outlandish theories
seriously. IIRC there was an interesting one that you
mentioned that theorized that during the rotation of
the sun about galaxy, that perhaps particle streams
were intense enough to cause a lot of heating in the
earth's atmosphere? Or perhaps absorbed enough of the
sun's radiant energy in the passage from the sun to the
earth to produce a cooler earth?
Alvin E. Toda
> Alvin E. Toda wrote:
It's true that radio trasmission and reception might be
affected on earth. But nobody sees radio waves. In
terms of heat and lite, there's no change. Of course up
in space that's another thing. If there insufficient
shielding any equipment up there can fail from the
particle streams that are emitted from sunspot
activity.
El Castor
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, El Castor wrote:
Experiments conducted by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National
Space Centre have shown that cosmic rays can act to precipitate low
level cloud formation, particularly over areas of the earth covered by
the oceans. Low level clouds have been shown to have a cooling effect,
while very high level clouds tend to contribute to warming.
The Earth's passage through areas of denser cosmic ray activity in the
arms of the Milky Way correlates with ice ages over the past several
million years, however the sun may have a more short term effect.
Periods of intense solar activity, which are characterized by
increased numbers of sun spots, result in the expansion of the sun's
magnetosphere to an extent sufficient to partially shield the Earth
from cosmic rays. Thus, periods of high sun spot activity and a
correspondingly large magnetosphere may be accompanied by lessened low
level cloud formation over the oceans and a correspondingly warmer
climate. Periods of low solar activity, which are accompanied by fewer
sun spots and a shrunken magnetosphere, may result in increased cloud
formation and a cooling effect. Perhaps coincidentally, or not, the so
called Little Ice Age of the Maunder Minimum was accompanied by a
period of very few sunspots.
"The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645
to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar
observers of the time. It is named after the solar astronomer Edward
W. Maunder (1851–1928) who discovered the dearth of sunspots during
that period by studying records from those years. During one 30-year
period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed
only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000–50,000
spots." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
In any event, sun spots in and of themselves almost certainly have no
effect on the Earth's climate, however they are symptomatic of other
changes in solar activity that may have important consequences for our
climate.
You can read all about Dr. Svensmark's research here:
http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/other/global-warming
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
Yep, I got that backwards. Sorry about that.
I did know better, that there were no sunspots to
speak of in the Little Ice Age. I don't know if
inferences could be drawn about the Little Ice
Age just based on recent observations over
the last hundred years. Sunspots themselves
of course are based on magnetism as you
say. The "magnetic lines" get stretched
because the sun doesn't rotate as a unit like
the solid earth, so periodically there's a
breaking of the lines and a readjustment.
Alvin E. Toda
Also, lines interact with the ionized gasses. The lines
or magnetic field become part of the ions (actually
mostly protons) and electrons rotate around the field.
They all become one magnetohydrodynamic fluidic
structure that gets stretched by the different solar
rotation rates. As this structure moves and breaks, it
transmits a lot of energy in the form of radio waves,
protons and electrons (or steams of particles that form
the Norther lights and similar phenomena in the
southern hemisphere.
Jeff claims that this released energy is huge enough to
bring earth out of an ice age. I just fail to see how
those little dots produce so much extra energy. We
don't see any differences in the solar constant with
sun spots. It's a theory that sun spots do affect it,
but no one has explained it in terms of a scientific
analysis, and also why the measured values of the solar
constant do not appear to change with sunspots. A
theory is worthless if it can't explain the observed
phenomena.
Rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
My guess is that breaking the magnetic bonds
isn't enough to make long-term changes in solar
flux as well.
When I read of the cooler sun and lack of
sunspots, my reaction was that the cooling was
the cause of the lack of sunspots, rather than
vice-versa. Sunspots are a surface phenomenon,
but the sun's energy comes from the deep interior.
Alvin E. Toda
Here the point I find that you neglect to point out
that probably there are a lot of other factors of low
level clouds-- polution from fires for example? I've
never heard of huge low clouds formed by cosmic rays.
> The Earth's passage through areas of denser cosmic
> ray activity in the arms of the Milky Way correlates
> with ice ages over the past several million years,
> however the sun may have a more short term effect.
> Periods of intense solar activity, which are
> characterized by increased numbers of sun spots,
> result in the expansion of the sun's magnetosphere to
> an extent sufficient to partially shield the Earth
> from cosmic rays.
That seems impossible because the ionized atmosphere of
the sun has such high magnetic permeability. You might
say it's like a gaseous metal that will trap the sun's
magnetic field like an electromagnet's wires that traps
and concentrates the electromagnets field to produce an
electromagnet. There is always a weak field from sun
near earth, but you imply that a great deal of the
atmosphere would have to blasted off the sun to
strenghten the field arround the earth.
> Thus, periods of high sun spot activity and a
> correspondingly large magnetosphere may be
> accompanied by lessened low level cloud formation
> over the oceans and a correspondingly warmer climate.
> Periods of low solar activity, which are accompanied
> by fewer sun spots and a shrunken magnetosphere, may
> result in increased cloud formation and a cooling
> effect. Perhaps coincidentally, or not, the so called
> Little Ice Age of the Maunder Minimum was accompanied
> by a period of very few sunspots.
Yes. The solar field on the solar surface extends
further into space during the peak activity period. But
since there is no field that can reach the distance of
earth without the disgorgement of huge amounts of
plasma to carry it to earth, it can't go far enough.
Besides there are so many other sources, such as
polution from fires, that can affect low cloud
formation, that even against the odds that the somehow
the field managed to reach here (it always does. I
think that you mean the solar field might become the
order of the earth's magnetic field in the vacinity of
Earth?) it wouldn't be noticed for all the other
sources of low cloud formation.
> In any event, sun spots in and of themselves almost
> certainly have no effect on the Earth's climate,
> however they are symptomatic of other changes in
> solar activity that may have important consequences
> for our climate.
>
> You can read all about Dr. Svensmark's research here:
> http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/other/global-warming
I like your galaxy rotation theory better. Perhaps when
have gotten our green house gasses under control and
have gotten in another place in the galaxy we'll find
out what the external source of the ice ages are (if it
exists). It could be something like a field of
asteroids that we encounter that smash into the earth?
Or perhaps within the rhythms of the planet (changes in
snow cover, rain distribution, etc), analysis can show
that there is some point of instability that can lead
to climate change? That point might for example still
be man-made, or natural life if man was not here. It's
still to be discovered.
El Castor
wrote:
Alvin, I have provided you with plenty of reading material. You should
avail yourself. Svensmark's discoveries regarding cosmic rays and
cloud formation have been widely accepted in the scientific community,
even by those who are believers in anthropogenic CO2 as the source of
global warming. Your remarks serve only to demonstrate that you are
clueless.
Alvin E. Toda
That's true. The energy flux from the deep interior
hasn't changed much in millions of years. It's kind of
a far-fetched theory to blame sunspots for global
warming.
Alvin E. Toda
He may have discovered a relation, but he needs to do
more work on that. I haven't seen much reporting on his
discoveries on clouds in the papers which leads me to
suspect that it's still a controversial theory of cloud
formation. As for his speculation on the sun's
magnetosphere and galactic cosmic rays, that hardly
seems worth the time to read unless they have been
studied with some observations and explained by models.
El Castor
wrote:
* Camp, C. D., and Tung, K. K., Surface warming by the solar cycle
as revealed by the composite mean difference projection, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L14703, 2007.
* Dickinson, R. E., Solar Variability and the Lower Atmosphere,
Bul. Am. Met. Soc., 56, 1240-1248, 1975.
* Douglass, D. H., and B. D. Clader, Climate sensitivity of the
Earth to solar irradiance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(16), 1786, 2002.
* Eichkorn, S., S. Wilhelm, H. Aufmhoff, K. H. Wohlfrom, and F.
Arnold, Cosmic ray-induced aerosol formation: first observational
evidence from aircraft based ion mass spectrometer measurements in the
upper troposphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 10.1029/2002GL015,044,
2003.
* Harrison, R. G., and K. L. Aplin, Atmospheric condensation
nuclei formation and high-energy radiation, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 63,
1811–1819, 2001.
* Harrison, R. G., and Stephenson, D. B. Empirical evidence for a
nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds, Prof. R. Soc. A,
doi:10.1098/rspa.2005.1628, 2006.
* Lockwood, M., & C. Fröhlich, Recent oppositely directed trends
in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature,
Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880; 2007.
* Marsh, N., and H. Svensmark, Galactic cosmic ray and El
Niño–Southern Oscillation trends in International Satellite Cloud
Climatology Project D2 low-cloud properties, J. Geophys. Res.,
108(D6), 4195, doi:10.1029/2001JD001264, 2003.
* Ney, E. P., Cosmic radiation and weather, Nature, 183, 451,
1959.
* Shaviv, N. J., The spiral structure of the milky way, cosmic
rays, and ice age epochs on earth, New Astron., 8, 39–77, 2003
* Shaviv, N. J., On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray
flux and radiative budget, J. Geophys. Res, 110, A08105, 2005.
* Shaviv, N. J., and J. Veizer, A celestial driver of phanerozoic
climate?, GSA Today, 13, 4–11, 2003.
* Svensmark, H., Cosmoclimatology: A New Theory Emerges, Astron.
Geophys., 58, 1.19-1.24., 2007.
* Svensmark, H. et al., Experimental evidence for the role of ions
in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proc. Roy. Soc.
A., 463, 385-396, 2007.
* Usoskin, I. G., N. Marsh, G. A. Kovaltsov, K. Mursula and O. G.
Gladysheva, Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray
induced ionization, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L16109,
doi:10.1029/2004GL019507), 2004.
* White, W. B., J. Lean, D. R. Cayan, and M. D. Dettinger,
Response of global upper ocean temperature to changing solar
irradiance, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 3255 – 3266, 1997
* Yu, F., Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of
aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate, J. Geophy.
Res., 107(A7), 10.1029/2001JA000248, 2002.
Alvin E. Toda
Lot of this is ancient, and only the last offers some
"empirical" evidence. I'm disappointed that you offer
poor information.
###########################################################
Alvin E. Toda a...@ieee.org
sr. engineer Phone: 1-808-455-1331
2-Sigma WEB: http://www.lava.net/~aet/2-sigma.html
1363-A Hoowali St.
Pearl City, Hawaii, USA 96782
El Castor
wrote:
2007 is ancient? Getting published in 2008 is difficult. It's only the
first week of February.
Big deal. And before I retired my title was "Consulting Systems
Engineer". Sheesh. Now you're just being a pompous jerk, but I guess
we knew that didn't we?
When CERN decides to design a $20 million project based on your
research, as they have for Svensmark's "poor information", be sure to
let me know.
"CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the
possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based
at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, this is the first time a
high-energy physics accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and
climate science; the results could greatly modify our understanding of
clouds and climate.
Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's atmosphere
from outer space. Studies suggest they may have an influence on the
amount of cloud cover through the formation of new aerosols (tiny
particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets). This is
supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation
between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds
exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of
only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate.
Understanding the underlying microphysics in controlled laboratory
conditions is a key to unravelling the connection between cosmic rays
and clouds.
The CLOUD experiment involves an interdisciplinary team of scientists
from 18 institutes in 9 countries, comprised of atmospheric
physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic-ray and particle physicists.
The PS provides an artificial source of ‘cosmic rays’ that simulates
natural conditions as closely as possible. A beam of particles is sent
into a reaction chamber and its effects on aerosol production are
recorded and analysed.
The initial stage of the experiment uses a prototype detector, but the
full CLOUD experiment will include an advanced cloud chamber and a
reactor chamber, equipped with a wide range of external
instrumentation to monitor and analyse their contents. The temperature
and pressure conditions anywhere in the atmosphere can be re-created
within the chambers, and all experimental conditions can be controlled
and measured, including the ‘cosmic ray’ intensity and the contents of
the chambers."
http://public.web.cern.ch/PUBLIC/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
Alvin E. Toda
> When CERN decides to design a $20 million project
> based on your research, as they have for Svensmark's
> "poor information", be sure to let me know.
>
> "CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to
> study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays
> and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron
> at CERN, this is the first time a high-energy physics
> accelerator has been used to study atmospheric and
> climate science; the results could greatly modify our
> understanding of clouds and climate.
Hey they have to justify the cost of these super
expensive accelerators. I don't deny that clouds are
important. Just don't think that cosmic rays are so
important. Why? because the solar wind is largely
deflected by the earth's magnetic field. Showing that
cosmic rays could help form clouds is just a tinny
winny step towards showing that they are the major
contributor to cloud formation. You need to get your
head out of the clouds. You're starting to believe
everything you hear. Research is nowhere near so
conclusive about his speculation.
El Castor
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, El Castor wrote:
Cosmic rays may have little impact on cloud formation over land,
however it is becoming increasingly likely that they are an important
factor in low level cloud formation over water. The fact that cosmic
rays are capable of acting as a precipitating agent in cloud formation
was proved using naturally occurring cosmic rays in the SKY experiment
at the Danish National Space Center in the year 2000. The CERN CLOUD
project was funded in 2006 to the tune of 20 million euros and is
expected to be fully operational in 2010.
The following is derived from a workshop conducted at CERN in May of
2001.
"CONCLUSIONS OF THE
WORKSHOP ON ION-AEROSOL-CLOUD INTERACTIONS
CERN, 18-20 APRIL 2001
Executive Summary
Recent observations suggest that cosmic rays may play a significant
role in the climate. In particular, satellite data have revealed a
surprising correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the fraction
of the Earth covered by low clouds. Since the cosmic ray intensity is
modulated by the solar wind, this could provide an important clue to
the long-sought mechanism connecting solar and climate
variability. Moreover, if this connection were to be established, it
could have significant consequences for our understanding of the solar
contributions to the present global warming, since the cosmic ray
intensity has fallen during the 20th century due to a
more-than-doubling of the strength of the solar wind."
http://cloudws.web.cern.ch/cloudws/documents_talks/IACI_conclusions/IACI_conclusions.pdf
The following institutions are collaborating on the CLOUD project:
* University of Aarhus, Denmark
* University of Bergen, Norway
* California Institute of Technology, USA
* CERN, Switzerland
* Danish National Space Center, Denmark
* Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland
* University of Helsinki, Finland
* University of Kuopio, Finland
* Lebedev Physical Institute, Russia
* University of Leeds, United Kingdom
* Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Leipzig, Germany
* University of Mainz and Max-Planck Institute for Chemistry
* Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg, Germany
* Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland
* University of Reading, United Kingdom
* Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom
* Tampere University of Technology, Finland
* University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. Jasper Kirkby is an experimental particle physicist at CERN and
the director of the CLOUD project. Why don't you contact him and
explains why his project is misguided? I am sure he would be very
appreciative of your advice: jasper...@cem.ch
Alternatively, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, the physicist who conducted the
SKY experiment, and has done the pioneering work in this field should
also be glad to receive your guidance: h...@dsri.dk
Please let us know what they have to say.
Jeff
Alvin E. Toda
Every once in a while your stuff has something goofy
like the above where "cosmic ray intesity has fallen...
due to ...doubling... of the solar wind". A lot of our
cosmic rays come from the solar wind. Why would
doubling it lead to a decrease. Perhaps you refer to
extra-solar cosmic rays? Then why can't they also enter
with the solar wind to the earth. All this indicates
that we are still about 10 years away for even a rough
indication of proving a strong influence of Cosmic rays
on the solar wind. Why toot your horn so loud? It's not
here yet.
El Castor
wrote:
Just to be clear, cosmic rays come in two flavors, high energy and
ultra-high energy. ALL (as in ALL) are of extra solar origin with the
lower energy particles probably being produced by supernovas and/or
the shock waves of supernovas. Ultra-high energy particles originate
from outside the galaxy, but the mechanism which produces them is
unknown. None "come from the solar wind".
>Why would
>doubling it lead to a decrease.
The sun's magnetosphere works to deflect cosmic rays, and therefore if
the magnetosphere doubles in size, it deflects more cosmic rays. The
larger the magnetosphere, the fewer cosmic rays strike the earth. To
once again summarize, over the last half century the sun has gone
through a period of unusually intense activity characterized by
increased sunspot formation. Therefore, one might anticipate that
fewer cosmic rays have struck the earth, producing fewer low level
clouds, and have therefore contributed to global warming.
>Perhaps you refer to extra-solar cosmic rays?
If you are referring to the conclusions of the
Workshop On Ion-Aerosol-Cloud Interactions held at
CERN, 18-20 APRIL 2001, please be assured that "I" did not have a hand
in writing those conclusions, therefore "I" didn't refer to anything.
The summary which I quoted was the work of Sir Arnold Wolfendale,
professor emeritus of the University of Durham, and former Astronomer
Royal of Great Britain. If you disagree with the conclusions of the
CERN workshop, I would encourage you to contact Sir Arnold at the
following address and set him straight: a.w.wol...@durham.ac.uk
Let us know what he has to say for himself.
>Then why can't they also enter
>with the solar wind to the earth.
Let me repeat. There is no question that increased solar activity
extends the sun's magnetosphere, which in turn serves to partially
shield the earth from cosmic rays. There is also no question that
cosmic rays play a part in cloud formation. That, as Al Gore would
say, is settled science. However, legitimate questions remain as to
the size of the effect, as well as it's influence at high altitudes.
The CERN CLOUD study is expected to many of those questions.
>All this indicates
>that we are still about 10 years away for even a rough
>indication of proving a strong influence of Cosmic rays
>on the solar wind. Why toot your horn so loud? It's not
>here yet.
Probably more like 3 - 4 years. How long will it be before the case
for the significance of anthropogenic CO2 warming is proved? Perhaps
much longer. In the meantime I drive a Prius and light most of the
house with CFLs. How about you?
Alvin E. Toda
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 16:24:43 -1000, "Alvin E. Toda" <a...@lava.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Every once in a while your stuff has something goofy
>> like the above where "cosmic ray intesity has
>> fallen... due to ...doubling... of the solar wind".
>> A lot of our cosmic rays come from the solar wind.
>
> Just to be clear, cosmic rays come in two flavors,
> high energy and ultra-high energy. ALL (as in ALL)
> are of extra solar origin with the lower energy
> particles probably being produced by supernovas
> and/or the shock waves of supernovas. Ultra-high
> energy particles originate from outside the galaxy,
> but the mechanism which produces them is unknown.
> None "come from the solar wind".
Popular notions are that the particles from the solar
wind produce northern lights. Cosmic ray also enter
along the same field lines. Where the energy comes from
is a theory. At least it seems that supernovas might
have something to do with it. I don't think that anyone
has established the source of cosmic rays that hit the
earth.
>> Why would doubling it lead to a decrease.
>
> The sun's magnetosphere works to deflect cosmic rays,
> and therefore if the magnetosphere doubles in size,
> it deflects more cosmic rays. The larger the
> magnetosphere, the fewer cosmic rays strike the
> earth. To once again summarize, over the last half
> century the sun has gone through a period of
> unusually intense activity characterized by increased
> sunspot formation. Therefore, one might anticipate
> that fewer cosmic rays have struck the earth,
> producing fewer low level clouds, and have therefore
> contributed to global warming.
This is also a very odd statment. The magnetic field at
the earth is very week. I suspect that anyfield that
might be in the intervening space between the earth is
not solar in origin but could be due to the solar wind
itself. Out in space, except near IIRC the outer Van
Allen lobes of charged particles, where the earth's
magnetic field will dominate, the solar wind is very
homogeneous for the magnetic field would also be
homogeneous. Sure cosmic rays will have slightly bent
paths, but to say that will cause them to miss the
earth is just not good science. For every one that
bends away, another on the other side of the eath will
be bent toward the earth. You're just waving your hands
over a crystal ball and hoping this nonsense means
something. There's no logical connection.
>> Then why can't they also enter with the solar wind
>> to the earth.
>
> Let me repeat. There is no question that increased
> solar activity extends the sun's magnetosphere, which
> in turn serves to partially shield the earth from
> cosmic rays. There is also no question that cosmic
> rays play a part in cloud formation. That, as Al Gore
> would say, is settled science. However, legitimate
> questions remain as to the size of the effect, as
> well as it's influence at high altitudes. The CERN
> CLOUD study is expected to many of those questions.
Let me repeat that you can't mean the the sun's
magnetic field is anywhere as strong as the Earth's
field. And so what if there is a uniform field caused
by the solar wind. Curved paths will have small effect
on the volume of cosmic rays impinging on the earth.
It's a little like rain drops.
>> All this indicates that we are still about 10 years
>> away for even a rough indication of proving a strong
>> influence of Cosmic rays on the solar wind. Why toot
>> your horn so loud? It's not here yet.
>
> Probably more like 3 - 4 years. How long will it be
> before the case for the significance of anthropogenic
> CO2 warming is proved? Perhaps much longer. In the
> meantime I drive a Prius and light most of the house
> with CFLs. How about you?
We are already there with man-made CO2. But didn't you
say that was true of the cosmic ray theory too?
El Castor
wrote:
Sadly, you seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you read. I
blame myself. Perhaps I used too many big words? Bundle up, Alvin,
it's likely to be a cold winter.
Alvin E. Toda
Sorry, when you try to bluff your way to such a foolish
statment, I just can't buy it.
El Castor
wrote:
China, the Middle East, parts of India, Canada, and Central Asia are
currently having the coldest winter in decades. A few months ago South
America experienced the coldest winter in decades, and the Antarctic
ice shelf extended further north than it has since records were first
kept in 1979.
Alvin E. Toda
So what? That has been predicted with global warming.
It's the average temperature that's getting hotter. For
example, the summers are getting hotter. And because
the average is hotter, glacial ice is melting. Due to
somemer drought and a loack of glaciers, we'll soon be
in deep trouble for lack of fresh water. Mexicans may
have to move here for lack of water. There'll be none
left in the Rio Grande.
El Castor
wrote:
Rio Grande Levees Getting Help
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=7630610&nav=0w0v
After floods, Mexico's Tabasco rebounds
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0208/p04s02-woam.html
National Weather Service flood watches and warnings cover virtually
the entire state
http://www.wdtn.com/Global/story.asp?S=7823422
Flood death toll rises in southern Africa
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/185030,flood-death-toll-rises-in-southern-africa--summary.html
Queensland braces for more flooding
http://news.smh.com.au/queensland-braces-for-more-flooding/20080211-1rio.html
Icy Through the Night; Flood Watch for Wednesday
http://www.myfoxphilly.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5515794&version=27&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Shelter opens to help flood victims
http://www.wthitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7848777&nav=menu593_2
Flood levels reaching dangerously high levels
http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/26449
My personal favorite:
DEBATE-Was the Biblical 'GREAT FLOOD' caused by 'GLOBAL WARMING'?
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6091
And where I live:
Average reservoir level for this time of year is 80%. We are at 90%.
El Castor
<jimst...@forgetthemail.com> wrote:
>[Default] On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:31:11 -0800, El Castor
>I remember 5 or so years ago the global warming/climate change mafia
>was saying China would dry up like a desert. No snow in winter would
>make mountains bare and annual flooding of Mekong, Yellow, Yangze and
>other rivers would be virtually a trickle. One I distinctly remember
>said the Three Gorges Dam would not have enough water behind it to
>keep river from going dry.
>
>Which is it with these clown? They change their gloom and doom
>predictions overnight. Black is White and the White is Black.
>
>No matter what, they always end up with the same demands that the US
>is at fault and has to kill our economy, reduce standard of living,
>and pay the costs of the rest of world for remediation. F*** em.
Nah, we will all fry. One money saving plus, the dust will just blow
over our bodies, eliminating the need for a funeral. It's all due to
the "somemer drought and a loack of glaciers". )-8