If NASA scientists are right, the Thames will be freezing ov

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.

ROFL!

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.

The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?

English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:07:47 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - the sort of stuff that you'd know if you could
think about what you read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

Pity about that. The idiot is the guy who thinks that the sun's
convection zone goes down to core where the temperature is high enough
to drive nuclear fusion. In fact it is confined to the outer 30% of
the sun,

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-sheds-new-light-solar-cycle

You didn't find the right Wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

could have told you that 99% of the powered generated by fusion in the
sun is generated within the first 24% of the sun's radius, and that
his power is radiated out to about 70% of the radius, when convective
transfer sets in.

So sun-spots don't have anything to do with the power generated by the
sun - they merely produce a very slight modulation in the rate at
which it gets to us.

Convection associated with sunspots certainly does affect transport to
the surface, as evidenced by the association of sunspots with the
amount of heat that arrives on Earth. It doesn't matter that fusion
happens deep; you said yourself that it takes 10 million years to get
to the surface. The sunspot dynamics is a lot faster than that.

You are convinced that the only thing that matters is man-made CO2,
and you won't even consider anything else. No wonder you don't design
electronics.


--

John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.

 

[Martin Brown]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

It takes around a hundred thousand years for a photon from a nuclear
reaction at the centre of the sun to make it to the surface. Effectively
a diffusion style random walk in a highly scattering plasma medium.

Sunspots merely tweak the effective transport properties of the
relatively shallow uppermost surface layer slightly.

Idiot.

Although it is true that the *sunspots* are cooler than the main
photosphere there is one crucial point you are missing. The sun on
average is mostly *brighter* when there are lots sunspots visible as the
lost output from the spots themselves is more than compensated for by
the much larger areas of bright faculae that accompany them. An active
sun is a brighter sun this is not in dispute and is included in all the
climate models. The effect of the sunspot cycle variation in TSI of 0.1%
on the global climate is however right at the limits of detection.

You cannot blame the sun for all the recent warming - the satellite data
rules out magically making the sun brighter.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed....

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa..gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.

The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.

Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 4:03 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:07:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - the sort of stuff that you'd know if you could
think about what you read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

Pity about that. The idiot is the guy who thinks that the sun's
convection zone goes down to core where the temperature is high enough
to drive nuclear fusion. In fact it is confined to the outer 30% of
the sun,

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...

You didn't find the right Wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

could have told you that 99% of the powered generated by fusion in the
sun is generated within the first 24% of the sun's radius, and that
his power is radiated out to about 70% of the radius, when convective
transfer sets in.

So sun-spots don't have anything to do with the power generated by the
sun - they merely produce a very slight modulation in the rate at
which it gets to us.

Convection associated with sunspots certainly does affect transport to
the surface, as evidenced by the association of sunspots with the
amount of heat that arrives on Earth. It doesn't matter that fusion
happens deep; you said yourself that it takes 10 million years to get
to the surface. The sunspot dynamics is a lot faster than that.

The changes are limited to 0.2% of the average solar output, and they
have to be short term - there's not enough mass in the photosphere to
store any climatically significant amount of energy.

You are convinced that the only thing that matters is man-made CO2,
and you won't even consider anything else.

This isn't true. The scientific evidence does make it fairly clear
that while CO2 is the major player, methane, ozone and soot all
contribute. They don't contribue all that much, and their residence
times in the atmosphere are a great shorter than CO2's 800 years. We
can win ourselves a few extra years of time to tackle the CO2 problem
by reducing methane, ozone and soot, but we've got to get CO2
emissions under control if we want to hold anthropogenic global
warming to less than or close to 2 degrees Kelvin.

No wonder you don't design electronics.

The wonder is that you can, given the capacity for sloppy thinking
that you exhibit here.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:

Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.

It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."

Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.

John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma. Most of what he posts can be traced back to failed attempts to
cast doubt on the generally accepted understanding of anthropogenic
global warming, and on those rare occasions when we can trace his
opinions back to real evidence, you can usually find a more recent
paper that demolished the case originally made.

This particular thread is even less soundly based. It starts with a
gross misinterpretation of the British Meteorological office climate
records for the last 15-years, published by the UK's Daily Mail, which
would fall apart if the journalist involved considered the climate
record over a rather longer period.

As Martin Brown has pointed out, this isn't the first time the Daily
Mail has sacrificed scientific accuracy to make a misleading
rhetorical point.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.
ROFL!

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html

O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.

The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?

English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.

I did, in the climategate emails

There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
commentary on it.

I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291

He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers. The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important. See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.

The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.

Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The outer layers of the sun are well stirred. Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive. Those
tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

Hydrostatic equilibrium, doh.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.

It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."

Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.

John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."
AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group, so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. There is no science but your science.
Here is an even better definition:
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Merriam-Webster)
You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

 

[Joerg]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.
ROFL!
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.
I did, in the climategate emails

There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
commentary on it.

I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291

He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.

Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:31:19 -0800 (PST), mrstarbom@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.

It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."

Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.

John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma.


"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."
AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group, so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones. There is no science but your science.
Here is an even better definition:
a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds (Merriam-Webster)
You could learn something from King Canute. People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine the climate.

And they have to be incredibly inept to dither for years over a simple
2-transistor oscillator.


--

John Larkin, President Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[John Devereux]

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.
ROFL!
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.
I did, in the climategate emails

There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
commentary on it.

I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291

He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.


Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

Leaving the merits of the argument aside - a conspiracy theory would be
where you think all the experts in the field are wrong, suppressing
evidence and so forth. If this is what you think, then surely it is
*you* that believes in a conspiracy theory, not Bill?

E.g., you presumably think the "climategate" scientists were engaged in
a "conspiracy" to defraud the public or some such?

--

John Devereux

 

[Joerg]

John Devereux wrote:

Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.
ROFL!
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.
I did, in the climategate emails
There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
commentary on it.

I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291

He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.

Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

Leaving the merits of the argument aside - a conspiracy theory would be
where you think all the experts in the field are wrong, suppressing
evidence and so forth. If this is what you think, then surely it is
*you* that believes in a conspiracy theory, not Bill?

Bill believes everything that opposes his climate panic is sponsored by
Exxon Mobil. He has put that in writing many times, right here in the
NG. To me that is like the mother of all conspiracy theories.

E.g., you presumably think the "climategate" scientists were engaged in
a "conspiracy" to defraud the public or some such?

No, I just think that some of them were rather dishonest and have
exhibited ethically questionable behavior. It does not matter whether
the emails were "believed to be private", it is unbecoming for a
scientist to write such words and has damaged the credibility of some of
the scientists beyond repair. This is merely an observation when talking
to others about climate change.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Phil Hobbs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers. The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important. See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.

The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.

Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.

The outer layers of the sun are well stirred. Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.

Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.

"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field, Bill, and it
shows. You've shot yourself in the foot again.

If basing a claim on the excellent agreement between physics-based
models and the best available observations isn't scientific, that sort
of knocks the pins out from under your climate research friends, even on
your showing.

Stellar structure calculations based on hydrostatic equilibrium have
been made since Kelvin, and with appropriately tweaked values for the
solar composition, they model the life cycle of main sequence stars
pretty well.
Schwarzschild's classic book on stellar structure was published in the
1950s, and we were still using it as a textbook in the 1980s.

My stellar structure prof at UBC, Dr. Jason Auman, was one of the first
to make a full numerical model of the Sun, back in the early 1960s when
that was hard. (Back in the day they used the photosphere to infer the
initial composition, and ran the nucleosynthesis model to figure out how
it changes with time. Progress has probably been made, but I haven't
followed it very closely.) The boundary condition used in the early
models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.

So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
wasn't poorly supported at all. It was supported about as well as
anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
climatology. It was just wrong, at least in detail. That's how science
advances.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 4:38 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:06 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 12:54 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun, which is much too cool for nuclear fusion - and their
effect on climate is very small.
ROFL!
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
O.5C is small, and the variation of +/-0.1% in solar radiance is also
small and basically cyclic. There's one entertaining sentence on that
web-site "Their results also suggest that the sensitivity of climate
to the effects of solar irradiance is about 27% higher than its
sensitivity to forcing by greenhouse gases" which is as fine an
example of meaningless nonsense as you could hope to find.
The effect of a 0.2% chance in solar radiance is about 27% higher than
some totally unspecified change in greenhouse gas concentration?
English may not be your mother-tongue, but you should be able to spot
weasel-wording by now.
I did, in the climategate emails

There wasn't a lot of weasel wording in the climategate e-mails - the
researchers involved were talking privately, and didn't hesitate to
call a spade a spade. There was a lot of weasel wording in the
commentary on it.

I bought and read Fred Pearce's "The Climate Files"

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Files-Battle-Global-Warming/dp/0852652291

He exonerates the scientists involved from dishonesty, but is unhappy
about the enthusiasm they displayed in getting rid of a denialist
editor on a journal that published a really bad paper that was useful
to the denialist propaganda machine. What he doesn't seem to realise
was that what motivated them was more that the editor had ignored the
advice of no less than four referees to not publish what really was a
very bad paper, rather than the fact that the paper was useful to
denialists - like most British science reporters Fred Pearce was never
trained as a scientist nor inculcated with the idea that scientific
literature is the basis of all scientific knowledge.

Bill, this has all been discussed here ad nauseam. You seem to stick to
your conspiracy theories, and I don't believe them.

The only "conspiracy theory" that I espouse is the proposition that
Exxon-Mobil fund a number of groups who deny the reality of global
warming. This is rather better supported than the average conspiracy
theory - the payments can be seen in Exxon-Mobil's public accounts.

The book "The Merchants of Doubt" spells out what has gone on in some
detail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Some of the groups that now tell us the anthropogenic global warming
is nothing to worry about were originally set up to tell us that
smoking didn't necessarily damage our health. It's a fairly depressing
example of human wickedness.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Joerg]

Phil Hobbs wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
BillSlomanwrote:
On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"
td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation.
But the sunspot thing looks serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.
The "modern maximum" started about 1900.
One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.
Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.
Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,
And how do you know that?
General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics
"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."
Idiot.
And how deep do you think that convective zone is?
https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...
says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.
The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.
I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.
--
BillSloman, Nijmegen
The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers. The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important. See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg.
Cheers
Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs
Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg
It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.
The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.
Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.
The outer layers of the sun are well stirred. Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.
Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.
"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

That's pretty amusing--you're way outside your field, Bill, and it
shows. You've shot yourself in the foot again.

It seems by now we should have a staffed position here at s.e.d. ... a
foot surgeon

If basing a claim on the excellent agreement between physics-based
models and the best available observations isn't scientific, that sort
of knocks the pins out from under your climate research friends, even on
your showing.

Stellar structure calculations based on hydrostatic equilibrium have
been made since Kelvin, and with appropriately tweaked values for the
solar composition, they model the life cycle of main sequence stars
pretty well.
Schwarzschild's classic book on stellar structure was published in the
1950s, and we were still using it as a textbook in the 1980s.

My stellar structure prof at UBC, Dr. Jason Auman, was one of the first
to make a full numerical model of the Sun, back in the early 1960s when
that was hard. (Back in the day they used the photosphere to infer the
initial composition, and ran the nucleosynthesis model to figure out how
it changes with time. Progress has probably been made, but I haven't
followed it very closely.) The boundary condition used in the early
models was that the photosphere temperature was absolute zero--that
perturbed the luminosity calculation only a little.

So the previous received wisdom on the constancy of the solar constant
wasn't poorly supported at all. It was supported about as well as
anything in astronomy, and quite a bit better than anything in
climatology. It was just wrong, at least in detail. That's how science
advances.

I guess according to Bill solar activity changes are an invention of
Exxon Mobil

<snicker>

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 3:46 pm, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 31, 3:24 am, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:

On Jan 31, 1:13 am, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:50:47 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:09 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:26 -0500, "Tom Del Rosso"

td...@verizon.net.invalid> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Maybe the apparent AGW was itself just a cyclic variation..

But the sunspot thing looks serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The sunspot minima correspond to low temperatures.

The "modern maximum" started about 1900.

One of the early episodes of Nova in the 1970's was all about sunspots.
Aparently they also correspond to hemlines and Beatlemania.

Since the sun warms the earth, and sunspots indicate something serious
going on with the sun, there's a chance the sunspot-temperature thing
is actually causal.

Sunspots are entirely superficial - confined to the outermost layers
of the sun,

And how do you know that?

General knowledge - just because you don't know it doesn't mean that
most educated adults are similarly ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot#Physics

"Although the details of sunspot generation are still a matter of
research, it appears that sunspots are the visible counterparts of
magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone that get "wound up"
by differential rotation. If the stress on the tubes reaches a certain
limit, they curl up like a rubber band and puncture the Sun's surface.
Convection is inhibited at the puncture points; the energy flux from
the Sun's interior decreases; and with it surface temperature."

Idiot.

And how deep do you think that convective zone is?

https://nar.ucar.edu/2011/lar/page/sun%E2%80%99s-convection-zone-shed...

says that it is roughly the outer 30% of the sun. Roughly 99% of the
power generated by nuclear fusion is produced with the inner 24% of
sun's radius.

The sun-spots don't influence that rate of fusion, just the short term
rate of convective transfer of the power generated to the outer
radiating layers - a rather slow transfer, since it apparently takes
10 millions year to get the photons from core to surface.

I don't happen to be an idiot, and only an ignorant twit like you
would be silly enough to make such a fatuous claim based on such
totally inadequate evidence - evidence that you obviously don't
actually understand.

--
BillSloman, Nijmegen

The temperature gradient in the interior of the Sun is very steep near
the photosphere, because it's only gas pressure that holds up the weight
of the outer layers.  The solar photosphere is very thin--less than 1000
km--so apparently minor perturbations of the convective transport in and
below the photosphere can be very important.  See e.g.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_density_vs_r.jpg..

Cheers

Phil "former astronomer" Hobbs

Sorry, that was density--here's temperature:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Dalsgaard1_T_vs_r.jpg

It could be very important in terms of short term fluctuations in the
"solar constant", but it isn't going to change the average amount of
heat coming out over any kind of extended period - the proposition
that changes in solar output could explain the ice ages is obvious
nonsense.

The energy emitted by a Solar flare can amount to 15% of one second's
worth of solar output.

Stellar flares can be more intense - but they seem to happen on
smaller stars with stronger magnetic fields.

The outer layers of the sun are well stirred.  Convection moves at
almost exactly the speed of sound, which in the solar interior is a
_big_ number, so you have to worry about the heat capacity of a lot more
than the photosphere.

The large-scale, time-averaged structure of the Sun is determined by
hydrodynamic equilibrium, but there are smaller variations on all time
scales--0.1%-ish since good satellite measurements have been available.

As for "obvious nonsense", that's not very persuasive.

Only if you don't engage your brain. The heat output of the sun is
generated by nuclear fusion in the core - 99% of the energy is
generated within 24% of solar radius from the centre.

There may be some 100,000 years worth of output proceeding through the
sun at any one time, but it's kind of hard to imagine a mechanism
operating in the convective zone (from 70% of the solar radius out to
the surface) that could change the solar output for long enough to
create an ice age (for which the current cycle time seems to be about
100,000 years).

 Those tenth-of-a-percent wobbles were widely considered impossible too, until
there were measurements to back them up.

"Widely considered" in the absence of precise measurements is scarcely
a scientific opinion. I suspect that if anybody had actually been
asked back then they wouldn't have said that it was impossible, merely
that the weren't any observations that suggested that anything like
that might be going on. Remember that the variation is paradoxical -
the "dark" sunspots that we can see accompany an marginally increased
solar output from the adjacent bright areas which more than compensate
from the reduced radiation from the dark areas.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Jan 31, 3:31 pm, mrstar...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, 31 January 2012 22:19:34 UTC+10, Bill Sloman  wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:21 am, mrst...@gmail.com wrote:
Try not to recite your dogma so uncritically.

It's not dogma - what I'm saying is based on the available scientific
evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Dogma "is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged
from, by the practitioners or believers."

Scientific evidence is fairly authoritative, but it is regularly
doubted, and disputed, and can be diverged from if you have better
counter-evidence, so it isn't dogma.

John Larkin's problem is that he treats denialist propaganda, which
purports to doubt and dispute the scientific evidence, as if it was
dogma.

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization[1]."

AGW is the established belief for your particular religious group,

The scientific establishment is not a religious group, and the belief
is only established to the extent that it hasn't yet been falsified.

so much so that you ignore all evidence which conflicts with it and try to pretend you are the only scientific ones.

I don't ignore, I'm just aware that the evidence that purports to
conflict with it has - so far - been either inadequate or bogus.
The post that opened this thread is a typical example if the
inadequate "counter-evidence" that gets presented,

There is no science but your science.

Science isn't monolithic, but it all rests on the same facts and
mostly relies on the same interpretations.

Here is an even better definition:
 a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds  (Merriam-Webster).

You may think that the scientific case is inadequate, but that does
strongly suggest that you don't know much about the science involved.

You could learn something from King Canute.  People have to be incredibly egotistical and semi-hysterical to believe they can determine > the climate.

King Canute's example was the tide, not the climate. At the moment you
wanting us all to do a King Canute - recommending the persistent
burning fossil carbon and injecting more CO2 into the atmosphere,on
the basis that you can't understand how anything that puny man can do
could cause the global temperature rise.

That isn't humility, but ignorance.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen