[meteorite-list] Meteorites Used To Study Solar Activity

From: Dave Freeman mjwy <dfreeman_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Sep 28 15:28:55 2006
Message-ID: <451C2274.1080309_at_fascination.com>

Dear Sterling, Robert, List;
All I know is I sell a heck of a lot of petrified tropical hardwood and
palm wood that was frozen here in time in Wyoming. And I sell a lot of
tropical hardwood and palm that was petrified and then ended up in a few
(five is the last count) glaciations....

My opinion; weather, seasons, and list topics are cyclic, enjoy the ride.
Best,
Dave F.

Sterling K. Webb wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sadly, the entire debate on "global warming" moved
> from being a scientific one into being a political one, then
> a partisan one. Now, it has gone beyond party politics, and is
> becoming a kind of vague, popular, semi-religious dogma that cannot be
> questioned.
>
> There is a deluge of an unprecedented amount of bad science, more
> ill-will between scientists, and more wrong-
> headedness demonstrated by scientists (and others) than
> in any scientific controversy in a century or more.
>
> If you want a thorough history of "global warming" as
> two centuries of scientific history, idea by idea, study by study,
> data by datum, I suggest this website, hosted by the American
> Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
> 250,000 words, very balanced, goes up to 1997-98. The
> site has the very nice feature; you can download the entire site,
> extensively hyperlinked, as a ZIP file and read it at your leisure.
> It's a good starting point.
>
> This same meteorite study was reported at Space.com:
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html
>
> To see to what extent the dogma of CO2 primacy
> has progressed toward unquestionability, you have only
> to look at this quote from that article:
> "The Sun's impact on climate has only recently been investigated.
> Recent studies show that an increase in solar output can cause
> short-term changes in Earth's climate, but there is no firm evidence
> linking solar activity with long-term climate effects."
>
> Excuse me, "no firm evidence linking solar activity with... climate
> effects"? OK, fellow, I'm going to float
> this 15,000 km mirror at the Earth-Sun L1 point, cutting
> off all solar radiation from reaching the Earth, and you tell me if
> you notice any change in YOUR climate, alright?
>
> Apart from the Earth's original heat of formation and
> the heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements,
> the Earth has no other source of heat than the Sun. As for
> the statement that "the Sun's impact on climate has only recently been
> investigated," such studies were being conducted for almost a century
> before the first monitoring of CO2 even began! (Granted those early
> studies were crap,
> but then the early studies of CO2 were crap, too. Most
> early studies are.)
>
> All energy supplied to the Earth comes from the Sun;
> how it is distributed on the planet is another matter. The
> thermal inertia of the oceans is the major factor. Ocean
> currents are the major distributive mechanism, followed by
> greenhouse gases, the major one of which is water vapor,
> followed weakly by CO2 and methane. As a "system," the
> mechanisms involved are horrendously complex and our
> "models" are pitifully inadequate.
>
> Interestingly, from the very first readings in the 1950's, the CO2
> record shows a rigidly consistent "sawtooth" pattern with a two-year
> cycle imposed on the curve. Yet, after fifty years of recording it, we
> have absolutely no idea what mechanism produces it. In fact, I've
> never heard an explanation even proposed. This very strong two-year
> signal has no effect on climate records (alternating hot
> and cold years?) whatsoever. So, when they compare
> CO2 levels with temperature, they just substitute a nice
> "smoothed" average and ignore the sawtooth, otherwise
> you'd get no match at all! Certainly legitimate, but it would
> bug me to use data I basically don't understand to "prove" something.
>
> Continuous monitoring of CO2 began in the late 1950's,
> so the record length has just reached 50 years. Its correlation
> with mean surface temperatures is moderately good but not great:
> Solar flux in visible light with Earth's temperature is better.
> Solar flux in UV light with Earth's temperature is much better.
> At one time, the correlation of the length of the sunspot cycle
> with Earth's temperature was better still, yet in the late
> 1990's that correlation suddenly "departed" from its previous
> pattern. Humans are so good at "seeing" patterns...
> Solar Wind rates with Earth's temperature is better (so far).
> Cosmic Ray flux with Earth's temperature is even better than that.
> The best correlation: Neutron Flux with Earth's Temperature: 99.57%.
>
> Now, you may be shaking your head and saying "Neutron flux? WTF is
> that about?" It appears that neutron flux (from all
> outside sources) is the controlling and dominant factor in the poorly
> understood formation of low level clouds. The effect on climate of a
> modest change in the number of low level clouds is an order of
> magnitude stronger than, say, doubling CO2.
> The major influence on the temperature of the Earth may be:
> The Universe.
>
> Solar theorists, however, have been unable to come up with
> a consistent, testable mechanism, while the gas boys have. True,
> it largely fails the test, but at least they've got one. Part of the
> problem is the good old-fashioned belief in the constancy and
> unchanging nature of the Sun. One is hard pressed to get a solar
> astronomer to admit to the notion that "Our Sun" may vary its
> output by as much as 1%.
> Meanwhile, if you examine every nearby G0 star (same mass) of the
> same age and similar composition, you find short term variations of 4%
> to 5% in ALL of them. What are we, just lucky? Special? When this
> paper is actually released instead of
> just press-released, it will interesting to see what percentage
> figure the language "increased strongly" actually means. 1%?
> 2%? 5%? 10%? The press release seems to suggest greater changes
> than what is currently believed, as if to soften us up. It's
> interesting, but it's meaningless without the numbers.
>
> CO2 levels are one mechanism, not necessarily the dominant
> mechanism at every time. From ice cores, it appears that changes
> in climate PRECEDE changes in CO2 by a century or two, which hardly
> suggests that CO2 drives the process. The full complexity
> of the carbon cycle has not been pinned down with any great precision,
> despite decades of modeling. At a time 135-140 million years ago, the
> Earth's climate was very similar to today's, but the CO2 levels were
> 3900 ppm (as opposed to 380 ppm today). Model that.
>
> The USA (granted, one continent, not the world) has long
> temperature records (125 years) taken at many stationary points with
> standardized thermometers. They show two cooling cycles and two
> warming cycles (of similar length). The US climate in
> 1995 was just about the same as it was in 1895.
> The measurement of atmospheric temperatures from space
> is unaffected by changes in measuring environments (heat islands
> around cities and so forth) and is far more accurate than ground
> measurement. Thirty years of such measurements show no net warming.
> The changes they do show are on the order of 0.01
> degree or less. Actually, the records show net cooling. This was
> so unacceptable that a complete revision of the data was performed and
> a net warming of 0.0017 degree (over 30 years) was extracted. Wow!
>
> Because of the fact that only our modern temperature
> records are accurate, we have to somehow correlate older, very much
> less accurate measurements of temperature with
> them. The technique is a purely mathematical one, finding the
> dominant trend in a welter of data points. The widely publicized
> result is called the "Hockey Stick" because it shows a very flat
> and shallow curve that bends up to near verticality in this century
> and validates the worst (best?) view of global warmists. It is the
> "star" of the Global Warming Show (Al Gore's movie), the
> mainstay of the dogma, the proof positive that cannot be controverted.
>
> The only problem with this is that the Hockey Stick curve is Hooey,
> pure crap, totally flawed and compromised, utterly worthless. Even if
> you feed the modeling program with randomly generated data, it
> produces the Hockey Stick. No matter what data you feed it, it
> produces the Hockey Stick. Worthless. And is being clung to by the
> True Believers like
> the Old Rugged Cross.
>
> The really sad part about this is that any mathematician
> who ventures to demonstrate this worthlessness of the Hockey Stick is
> playing Russian Roulette with his career, becomes inexplicably
> unpublishable, has his character smeared, and ends up with no friends
> except FoxNews, coal-burners, and a clutch of rightwing whacky
> websites, and as for the blogo-
> sphere, you'd get better treatment if you just confessed to being a
> member of Al Quidah.
>
> Paradoxically, there are also many political figures who do not
> worry about whether the science is shaky or not, because the goals
> warmism would push us toward are good ones, in their estimation, at
> least. Truth is not the business of politics, in case we ever needed
> reminding of that...
>
> If I go on, I'll start talking about the ice core gas data, and
> hey! nobody wants that... Scientifically, it's fundamentally
> a mess, which is now complicated by doubt with respect to
> the reliability of ANY study. What can you believe? To me, this is a
> unfamiliar question to apply to science: who's lying?
>
> There are lots of scientists who understand just how shaky global
> warmism is. They understand equally well how
> risky it is to stick a meddling hand into the five billion dollar per
> year machinery of global warmism while it's running.
> There are lots of scientists being counted as global warmists
> who really don't pay much more than lip service to the idea
> because by playing ball they get more money to fund their
> own useful but non-glamorous research in a year than they would have
> gotten in a lifetime without the global warmism "industry."
>
> Global warmism seems destined to become a universal
> doctrine. Perhaps a small amount of real research will continue
> until we understand things better. On the other hand, perhaps we will
> have completely implemented our adjustment to the Greenhouse Future
> just in time to greet the next Great Solar Minimum?
>
>
> Sterling K. Webb
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matson, Robert"
> <ROBERT.D.MATSON_at_saic.com>
> To: "Meteorite Mailing List" <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:25 PM
> Subject: RE: [meteorite-list] Meteorites Used To Study Solar Activity
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> Who'da thunk that global warming could become an on-topic
> subject for the meteorite list?! --Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com
> [mailto:meteorite-list-bounces_at_meteoritecentral.com] On Behalf Of Ron
> Baalke
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: Meteorite Mailing List
> Subject: [meteorite-list] Meteorites Used To Study Solar Activity
>
> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060926-015940-3936r
>
> Meteorites used to study solar activity
> UPI
> September 26, 2006
>
> OULU, Finland (UPI) -- A Finnish-led international team has used
> meteorites to investigate the sun's solar activity of past centuries.
>
> Ilya Usoskin at Finland's Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory and
> colleagues compared the amount of Titanium 44 in 19 meteorites that have
> fallen to the Earth the past 240 years. They said their findings confirm
> that solar activity increased strongly during the 20th century. They
> also find the sun has been particularly active during the past few
> decades.
>
> The scientists say studying the sun's activity is one of the oldest
> astrophysical projects, as astronomers began recording the number of
> sunspots to trace the sun's magnetic activity 400 years ago.
>
> The team examined a set of 19 meteorites whose dates of fall are
> precisely known, measuring the amount of radioactive isotope Titanium 44
> in each meteorite. Titanium 44 is produced by the cosmic rays in the
> meteorites while they are outside the Earth's atmosphere. After the
> meteorite has fallen, it stops producing the isotope.
>
> By measuring the Titanium 44 in the meteorites, the scientists
> determined the level of solar activity at the time the meteorite fell.
>
> The study appears in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters.
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>
>
Received on Thu 28 Sep 2006 03:28:52 PM PDT