[dorlomin]

Sorry but the heliosphere is so nebulous it has no impact on the ionizing and non ionizing radiation arriving at the earth from beyond the solar system.

[yippleflipple]

meemoe_uk, are u serious???

this sounds like a really bizarre conspiracy theory. if what you say is true then i have been so ignorant. ive never heard of this theory. but its not the first time my mind has been blown, and probably not the last. it all seems conspiracy to me tho.. conspiracy doesnt rule, only chaos does..

[yippleflipple]

i agree the elite are in control, whatever the means, it seems obvious.. but the sun thing???? seriouslly??/?

[meemoe_uk]

Hi FP, Why not? The elite play strategic games with all significant commodities. Food and energy are as crucial as can be. Wouldn't it be great if your estimates on crop yields for the next 10 years were acurate while your competitors had been misled by false info? The relation between sun cycles and staple crop yield is 400 years evident. Why not apply the knowledge?

Dorlomin, how is it nebulous? Is the radiation we recieve from the sun 'nebulous'? It doesn't take up much physical space, but it's astronomically powerful.
"the heliosphere...has no impact on the ionizing and non ionizing radiation."
That's a straight contradiction in terms. The defintion of the heliosphere is the space of influence whereby incoming ions are pushed away from the solar system by outgoing ions,( to the hypothetic surface whereby the net KE of the ions is zero.)

[ReverseEngineer]

conspiracy doesnt rule, only chaos does..

What if its a Conspiracy of Chaos?

Reverse Engineer

[dorlomin]

Dorlomin, how is it nebulous? Is the radiation we recieve from the sun 'nebulous'? It doesn't take up much physical space, but it's astronomically powerful.
"the heliosphere...has no impact on the ionizing and non ionizing radiation."
That's a straight contradiction in terms. The defintion of the heliosphere is the space of influence whereby incoming ions are pushed away from the solar system by outgoing ions,( to the hypothetic surface whereby the net KE of the ions is zero.)

Time for some education.

First try reading the entire sentace.

Sorry but the heliosphere is so nebulous it has no impact on the ionizing and non ionizing radiation arriving at the earth from beyond the solar system.

Its in response to this point in the OP.

"Around 90 per cent of the galactic cosmic radiation is deflected by our heliosphere, so the boundary protects us from this harsh galactic environment."

The solar irradiance has hardly shifted in the past 25 years


You realise the difference between irradiance and the solar wind? Irradiance affects the full spectrum of light, the strength of the solar wind affects the volume of ionizing radiaiton from the sun which has no impact on the climate so far as we understand.

Here is a graph of the sunspot cycle for those interested.



Why if charged particles from the sun have impact on the earths climate is it not dominated by an 11 year cycle?

[vision-master]

The Sun (large)
The Sun has been strangely calm this year. For more than 200 days so far this year, no sunspots have been observed. In fact the Sun has been quieter this year than in any year since 1954, when it was calm for 241 days.

Edited: Changed [img] to [url]. -FL

[Ferretlover]

Great photo, VM.

[bodigami]

...

[bodigami]

...

[meemoe_uk]

>Its in response to this point in the OP.
I know. And your wrong. I repeat, the heliosphere deflects incoming galactic ions away from the solar system. Without it, more galactic ions would bombard the Earth.

Then you say this...
>The solar irradiance has hardly shifted in the past 25 years
OK, but this is a different subject to the heliosphere. I don't see the continuity of what your saying.

>You realise the difference between irradiance and the solar wind?
Yes
> Irradiance affects the full spectrum of light, the strength of the solar wind affects the volume of ionizing radiaiton from the sun
Nearly agree. I would say Irradiance is the ' full spectrum of light' as you say. And the solar wind is the volume of ionizing particles . By saying irradiance affects the FSoL you make it sound like one is more causal than the other, like they are seprate entitys. Not so, they are the same thing.

>which has no impact on the climate so far as we understand.
There is a 400 year correlation between climate on Earth and the solar cycles. The correlation has been know for 200 years. A very convincing theory of the mechanism was published recently by Henrik Svensmark. It pulls together the ideas and observations that had been accumulating over the last few decades. Read his book ' The chilling stars '

>Why if charged particles from the sun have impact on the earths climate is it not dominated by an 11 year cycle?
The signal has recently been a bit small for Earth climate to show within a cycle. This is because we're at gleissberg minimum. During gleissburg maximum (1950s), there was a distinct Earth climate variation within a cycle.
Personally, I convince myself that I notice the cycle. Every decade seems to be punctuated with at least 1 cold winter just after solar minimum, while the hottest years seem to be just after solar max, 2002 to 2005 were the hottest for me! But that's just me.
There is a much more distinct inter-swabe cycle signal. And an even greater inter gleissburg cycle. Which is why there's so much excitement about the climate now. We're moving from Solar schwabe cycle 23 to SC24, but also from gleissburg cycle 4 to 5.
The elite know we're in the gleissburg minimum, the people don't.

Nice graph. You can see the 70s cooling period coincided with SC20 which is smaller than those around it. You can also see the little ice age corrisponded to smaller cycles. You can also see the gleissburg cycles.

Rough Gleissburg cycle dates :
2 1710 - 1810 ,
3 1810 - 1910 ,
4 1910 - 2008
5 2008 -

[dorlomin]

>Why if charged particles from the sun have impact on the earths climate is it not dominated by an 11 year cycle?
The signal has recently been a bit small for Earth climate to show within a cycle. This is because we're at gleissberg minimum. During gleissburg maximum (1950s), there was a distinct Earth climate variation within a cycle.

You are a kick in the arse away from astrology. Comon then show me the data showing the variation in the flux of charged particles reaching the earth over a period of time. I want to see the physical data to see what the scale of variation is between the 11 year cycle and a longer cycle.

And explain why the enormous flux of charged particles hitting the earth during a major solar flair has no notable impact on the earths weather?

A vague correlation does not equal causation.

[meemoe_uk]

dorlomin, I think I might like you. You may be an AGWer but your investigative procedure is correct. Most AGWer round here ignore analysis and concentrate on personal attacks.

> show me the data showing the variation in the flux of charged particles reaching the earth over a period of time.
You got it.
I've been posting this link since Dec2007.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAUdDLTLXGU&NR=1
The bit you're after starts at 3.00. But you'll get most out of it if you watch the lecture from the start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDX2ExKYyqw

If you're a serious techy with plenty of spare time you might want to study jan janssens graphs 1st hand. Janssens work are often used in archibald's lectures.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC23web/SCweb8.pdf
Page 17. You see SC23 flare activity is pretty small compared to most of the 20th century. That's why sub cycle Earh climate variation isn't as pronounced as it could be.

> explain why the enormous flux of charged particles hitting the earth during a major solar flair has no notable impact on the earths weather?
I can't do that. I believe they do cause notable impact on the Earth's climate.

[dorlomin]

>

explain why the enormous flux of charged particles hitting the earth during a major solar flair has no notable impact on the earths weather?

I can't do that. I believe they do cause notable impact on the Earth's climate.

Could you please provide a link or at least write a post to show a correlation between the huge bursts of additional cosmic radiation arriving at the earth and the earths weather (these are so short term that they will affect weather rather than climate).

Secondly due to the earths shape the amount of magnetosphere and atmosphere partilces will pass through will change significantly as latitude changes. Can you show a link between cloud formation at different latitudes and the inosing radation at low altidudes at those latitudes? Prefereable with variance over an eleven year cycle.

The earths magnetic field has a significant part in the amount of ionising radiation that reaches the atmosphere and it varies regularly. But because of the magnatising of volcanic rock we have a pretty good long term record of the earths magentic field. Can you show a very long term link between the earths magnetic field strength and the climate?

[dorlomin]

One final point, most scientist agree that the Milankovitch cycle is the dominant factor in the earths climate over the past 3 million years. The key to this is the WM^2 at the 65 deg N for the first month past the solstace. I.e. the amount of solar energy recieved at that latitude through June\July. The lower this number the cooler the summer, the cooler the summer the further south the ice can stay frozen reflecting heat back into space and over the years accumulating into glaciers. This is not some minor component. Over the past 2000ish years this has dropped from about 505 WM^2 down to 460WM^2. Yet we are at the very least at the same temperature as during the medievel maximum. Most studies indicate a greater temperature at high nothern lattitudes.

How does the fact that the arctic is melting rapidly when the energy it is recieving in summer drop so low mix with your hypothesis that its all about the sun spots?

Link one
Link 2

[dissident]

If you look at the distribution of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) energy deposition you will see that it maximizes above the extratropical tropopause (where you get less than 40 ion pairs produced per cubic centimeter per second). The ionization produced by GCR drops to a minimum in the tropics (less than 10 ion pairs /cc/s at peak altitude) and falls of less than 1 ion pair /cc/s at the surface. The geomagnetic polar caps are where most of the GCR particles go even though they are high energy (Usoskin et al. 2006, Nicolet 1976, etc).

The influence of GCR on climate is postulated to be via water ion cluster cloud condensation nuclei formation. Ionization by GCR produces NOx and HOx. Both radical families can contribute to cluster formation, but the clusters do not last a long time and typically have the problem that they are too small to be efficient CCN in contrast to dust particles for example.

Low altitude clouds contribute to cooling via their high albedo while high altitude clouds contribute to heating since they increase infrared trapping around the tropopause. We are talking about cloud formations covering large areas and not just sporadic strato-cumlus towers. In the upper troposphere its cirrus ice clouds that are important for infrared trapping. As mentioned above it is in the tropopause region that GCR CCN maximize so they will be contributing to cirrus cloud formation. This is clearly going to contribute to warming.

In the lower troposphere, the ambient CCN are already high and the GCR contribution is nothing more than noise. Dust and other surface aerosols have a distribution that falls off with height thanks to sedimentation and rainout. So the greatest contribution from GCR to cloud formation is in the upper troposphere given their own distribution and the general CCN distribution.

[meemoe_uk]

Hi Dorlomin,
I can't give you the solid evidence you request now because I've not been concentrating on those aspects of the hypothesis I support. But I agree there should be some signatures in those datas.
This is a stop gap response before I go and find some relavent data. Several parts are of my on going learning in climatology and I don't know how long it will be before I can make sure statments on them. Could be years!

***

On rapid effect of sun flares etc. This is the aspect I know least about. I will be reading into it a best I can. It's pure hunch at the mo. All I can say is that
1. I see at least a small correlation between sun activity with the weather I experience 1st hand.
2. It is theorectically plausible that the immense energys of the sun have effects on earths climate. No one disputes the light spectrum of the sun affects Earth's climate, so why not the immense ionic energy?
3. I believe the long term affects of solar ionic energy are apparent, and other non-weather short term affects are apparent.
e.g. ultra long distance ham radio is only possible during sun-to-Earth ion bombardment. So why not the weather?

On cloud behaviour varying with latitude in corelation with ionic input. No link. But this is a difficult thing to do because.
1. Earth Weather system is complex and noisey.
2. Cloud distribution varys with latitude anyway, this makes it fundamentally difficult to detect the effects of ionic influence.
3. It's a serious project that would take alot of effort. Money to back such a project is difficult to find since it is not AGW.
Not to say such a link doesn't exist. It's a ongoing project to find one.
wrt to cloud cover variation during the 11 years cycle. My research is ongoing. Ontop of what I said before consider these factoids which motivate my interest in this theory.
1942-3 Winters described at time 'as worst in 200 years', were during solar minimum.
Worst recent winter in North England, landscape of 8 foot ice and snow monoliths into March - 1963 , at solar minimum
1984 6 foot snow drifts common in North england. During solar minimum
1994 June. Astonishingly powerful and lengthy electrical storms over North England. During solar minimum.
All these events were considered freak.

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-data/dailyssn.php
for sunspot data archive.

Earths magnetic field. I don't think Earth's magnetic field has much effect on the overall incoming amount of ionic energy. The sun's field is much stronger , ( around a million times I recall? ). I don't expect to see any significant signature of weather change during Earth magnetic reversals for this reason*. Others in the sunspot camp disagree. But I consider this superfluous to the sunspot theory of Earth climate.
* I know AGWers like to fixate on things that amount to less than millionths of the total influence, like parts of atmospheric methane per total. Sorry please ignore this dig

Milankovich. I'm more intersted in shorter time periods than those considered by Milankovich. The Schwabe cycle is roughly 11 years. The gleissburg cycle is roughly 100 years. I base my predictions of global cooling on the behaviour of these cycles and the 400 years of data we have on them. Nothing to do with Milankovich. I haven't considered the mixing of sunspot theory with milankovich. I see it as superfluous. I expect it'll be roughly be arithmetic.

Dissindent,
What a well worded post. I have a slight fear you might have done a 'cid' and just copied and pasted from some pro article. Otherwise you give the impression of being a proffessor or something. If so what are you doing here??
After carefully reading it a couple of times I found what u say internally consistent and compelling. I have to agree with the bulk of what your saying.
One or two niggles. e.g.
>the clusters do not last a long time
You leave the possibilty that as long as there are sufficent clusters being formed, enough of them will beat the odds of disbanding, to instead seed water droplets.

But really the 'high brow' discussion of the sunspot Earth climate mechanism is not crucial. There is 400 year data on the corelation. At matt Simmons says ' data beats theory every time'. If consistent analysis yields counter to the data, the basis of the analysis is wrong.

The svensmark mechanism for the sunspot - Earth climate corelation is open to dispute. The sunspot Earth climate corelation isn't. At best, you can only convince me that svensmark is wrong or there's a serious flaw in our understanding of physics.

OK, with that in mind, getting back to the ionic seed theory of clouds...
Key conjecture points.
Water weather system is responsible for very large amount of temperture moderation on Earth.
Only slight disturbance to this system is enough to significantly change climate.
Acknowledging the point dissident makes, ionic seeding of clouds is small compared to other seeding mechanisms.
But the large variation in solar ionic activity over the inter schwabe and gleissburg cycles is enough to constitute a 'slight disturbance' to the water weather system via ionic cloud seeding.

In summary, in contrast to AGW, ionic cloud seeding theory doesn't consider small changes in micro components to Earths atmos, it considers small changes in behaviour of major components of Earth's atmos.

Now let's speculate on ionic cloud seeding to global temperture relation.
My take on it...
OK, data presented by archibald shows high energy galactic radiation increases at solar min, these are the ions which chiefly affect cloud formation.
Clouds form more readily during solar minimum and weak solar cycles.
Also, the whole cloud part of the water cycle is accelarated. i.e. clouds form faster, under dryer conditions and pricipate more readily.
This has a 'squeezing the cloth' effect on atmospheric water. Water will be expelled from the atmos more readily. That means less water in the atmos.
Water is by far the most powerful greenhouse atmos agent. A small reduction will significantly reduce global temp.
At the new lower temp, evaporation rates will be lower, but lower cloud cover will give longer time for ocean exposure to sunlight, a big mechanism for evap.

Note that my theory is different to svenmark's in that he reckons the new ionic induced clouds, once formed, will persist in high quantity in the atmos, and it's the 0.6 albedo of these clouds which'll cause global cooling via reflection of incoming solar energy.

Note this marked difference in theorys is possible because of the 2 main opposed effects of clouds. 1. they reflect sunlight, 2. they preserve Earth heat by internal reflection and specfic heat capacity. Which effect prevails? It is speculative.

Another key data to note is that during cool periods, the Earth tends to get less precipitation. This is a main influence in my 'less clouds' variation on svensmark's theory.

Note it's less clouds on global average. Some localised cloud density increase is certain. e.g. Where I live. In england the moisture from the gulf stream will condense faster and precipitate more onto england. During low ionic periods, this moisture would hang in the atmos for longer and travel further around Europe, providing longer lasting greenhouse effects.
I've seen this very markedly over the last 3 years as solar minimum arrived, we've had increasingly wet weather.

I anticipate the question ' how does the cloud formatiom mechanism distinguish between solar ions and comsic ions ' ? Comsic ions are more powerful. I don't know exactly how this affects cloud formation but it does.

Finally, I've just adrressed this implicity already by outlining the mechansm.
>In the lower troposphere, the ambient CCN are already high and the GCR contribution is nothing more than noise.
But I'll say explicity here that I'm dissagreeing with you on this. The corelation between GCR and global temp is in the link I gave to dorlomin in my last post. So GCR can't be just noise.
Otherwise I agree with what you say.

[dorlomin]

Sod all to do with peak oil so I am sticking this in general.

I know people outside the UK cant get iplayer, so you may have to find 'alternative' means of getting this but its a recent BBC production about the solar system that is pitched at the not so scientifically literate, but the visuals are just pure geek eye candy. It is presented by professor Brian Cox, a physicist from the university of Manchester who works on the LHC in search of the Higgs-Boson.

I know that many (not all) peak oilers are interested in science and not beyond being awed by some good graphics and cinematography. Some people find it a touch patronising but its not aimed at Phd's in astrophysics, but hell I loved it.

Just a heads up for interested non UK residents to search for this online.

[eXpat]

Thanks for the heads up! I will check it out.

[Novus]

It is actually what is beyond the solar system that is truely amazing. There are stars 100 billion times brighter than the sun. Massive back holes that could swallow up even the hottest and bright stars and cover them in darkness. Binary star systems with two suns. Pulsars, Quasars, Neutron stars. Billions of Galaxies with billions of stars in each galaxy. Diamonds the size of North America.