Climate Change

[orrery]

Persian, lets take a look at those Cosmic Ray levels again:



Let it also be stated for the record, that I am not a "Climate Change Denier" or a "Global Warming Denier"

My contention is the claim that scientists have achieved Differentiation of the temperature variables. Some may have claimed that Cosmic Rays do not effect warming, I however, am not interested in Temperature increases, I am interested in overall Energy Level increases. An increase in Collisions increases the Energy levels, not only collisions with the Ionosphere or Earth, but the Heliospheric environment. Energy gains can occur in "Quantum Steps"

But again, I see no reason why Cosmic Ray data should be dismissed based on a single study that any rational person can see is not conclusive or inclusive of the total effects. I am concerned with Energy Levels, and the data shows that the Heliospheric Energy Levels have been on a steady increase as evidence by Cosmic Ray and Sunspot activity.



The most current data here shows sustained energy levels:

http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/COSRAY/Images/now.gif

^^ image would not post into forum

This data shows sustained increased levels that correlate with the so-called temperature changes just as well as modern aerosol production.

Other researchers have provided correlating data such as here:



here:



and here:



And again, I am not denying climate change or warming, I am seeking a differential equation including all possible variables in order to create the best temperature predicting models. Source differentiation is the height of my concern here.

End deforestation now!

[orrery]

You have also stated that scientists have said there is no correlation between Cosmic Rays and Temperatures:

However, this statement is perplexing as an experiment done by CERN scientists just last year showed that there was a relationship between Cosmic Rays & Temperature:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/0 ... te-models/

We also have a paper here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974ARA%26A..12...71W

and another peer-reviewed journal paper here:

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs ... M4EjG8hgWE

The Heliospheric Bubble has an energy density, when you introduce increasing levels of impacts within that energy shell you achieve higher energy levels. If Cosmic Ray activity increases, the Heliosphere will become excited and energy levels will logically increase. Sustained higher levels could create the analogy of a "frog being slow boiled in water" and never realizing it until its too late.

I also do not recognize your post-1979 data. The Modern Maximum of Solar Output is still ongoing, now could you stop a freight train in one year or two? The Sun could be extremely active for decades and then go lower, but cinders continue to burn long after the flames have died down. Sustained levels. Also, "luminosity" is not a measurement of "energy levels"

The Sun has been extremely active in the X-Ray and other bands.

[orrery]

The GOES project for Cosmic Space Weather measures:

Solar Electron Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/elec_3d.html

Solar X-Ray Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

We also need to make sure our models include flux levels for Neutrons, Protons, Cosmic Rays, Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Microwaves, "Cosmic Microwave Background" Flux, Heliospheric Shell Density Flux. The Ionosphere is constantly fluctuating in its height and the GeoMagnetic field is also in constant fluctuation.

We have ozone depletion & recovery, rotational consequences that involve the Earth-Sun alignment with the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, directed Solar CME activity.

Dissipation is another key consideration. These increase energetic activities could be entangled with the Earth's electric environment for decades until they are fully radiated away.

Once again, I am not against the idea of manmade gases contributing to the over-all density and causing an increase incident of overall "collisions" resulting in a measurable temperature increase. I am just very skeptical about the claims for variable differentiation.

[orrery]

This blog here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/ ... chart.html

Seems to show a very convincing correlation between Sunspot & Cosmic Ray activities with global temperatures. I am not saying that there are not other contributing factors or that CO2 is not one of them, I am merely stating that a proper model should include every possible variable and each variable should have a function that describes how changes in that variable contribute to global temperature levels. I am not aware of any multi-variable differential equation that has been created to satisfy that demand.

[PersianPaladin]

From The Guardian article:-

This statement refers to a hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute, who has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures. The GCR hypothesis suggests that when they reach Earth, GCRs (high-energy charged particles originating from somewhere in our galaxy) are capable of "seeding" clouds; thus at times when a lot of GCRs are reaching the Earth's surface, more clouds will form. Clouds generally have a cooling effect on the Earth's temperature, because they reflect sunlight.

So the hypothesis goes like this: high solar activity means a strong solar magnetic field, which deflects more GCRs away from Earth, which means less cloud formation, which means less sunlight is reflected away from Earth, which means more warming. This GCR-caused warming would amplify the warming already being caused by increased solar activity. Conversely, cooling from decreased solar activity would hypothetically be amplified by more GCRs on Earth, more clouds, more reflected sunlight, and thus more cooling.

It's important to note that so far virtually all scientific research on GCRs has shown that they are not effective at seeding clouds and thus have very little influence over the Earth's temperature. In fact, as Zeke Hausfather has noted, the leaked IPCC report specifically states this:

"...there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of [cloud condensation nuclei] or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way."

You have simply talked about "energy levels". You also imply correllation = causation, which is a misleading statement to make. I never said there is no relationship. It's just that it is very weak.

[PersianPaladin]

The GOES project for Cosmic Space Weather measures:

Solar Electron Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/elec_3d.html

Solar X-Ray Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

We also need to make sure our models include flux levels for Neutrons, Protons, Cosmic Rays, Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Microwaves, "Cosmic Microwave Background" Flux, Heliospheric Shell Density Flux. The Ionosphere is constantly fluctuating in its height and the GeoMagnetic field is also in constant fluctuation.

.

Yes, but this "constant fluctuation" you go on about is not shown in the temperature-trend which has been going upwards and out of synch with solar activity. For some reason, you deny the obvious data on solar activity and worldwide temp increase. Not sure why you do this.

[orrery]

The GOES project for Cosmic Space Weather measures:

Solar Electron Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/elec_3d.html

Solar X-Ray Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

We also need to make sure our models include flux levels for Neutrons, Protons, Cosmic Rays, Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Microwaves, "Cosmic Microwave Background" Flux, Heliospheric Shell Density Flux. The Ionosphere is constantly fluctuating in its height and the GeoMagnetic field is also in constant fluctuation.

.

Yes, but this "constant fluctuation" you go on about is not shown in the temperature-trend which has been going upwards and out of synch with solar activity. For some reason, you deny the obvious data on solar activity and worldwide temp increase. Not sure why you do this.

I don't find them to be out-of-sync. It seems we have different definitions of solar activity.

[PersianPaladin]

The GOES project for Cosmic Space Weather measures:

Solar Electron Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/elec_3d.html

Solar X-Ray Flux: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/rt_plots/xray_5m.html

We also need to make sure our models include flux levels for Neutrons, Protons, Cosmic Rays, Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Microwaves, "Cosmic Microwave Background" Flux, Heliospheric Shell Density Flux. The Ionosphere is constantly fluctuating in its height and the GeoMagnetic field is also in constant fluctuation.

.

Yes, but this "constant fluctuation" you go on about is not shown in the temperature-trend which has been going upwards and out of synch with solar activity. For some reason, you deny the obvious data on solar activity and worldwide temp increase. Not sure why you do this.

I don't find them to be out-of-sync. It seems we have different definitions of solar activity.

But I showed you a chart with established data from NASA and scientists on the 11-year sunspot activity against global temperature - going out of synch in particular since 1979.

Solar maxima = largest number of sunspots and strongest solar electric field. I'm not sure what other definition you are assuming. If you're assuming other fluctuations then they are clearly too temporal, minimal in their effect and are lacking in empirical evidence.

[orrery]

You showed "Total Solar Irradiance vs. Temperature" but the calculated value for TSI is spectrally deficient. This data is not reliable since previous attempts to measure TSI did not include UV, X-Ray, Microwave, and other frequency wavelengths. Which is highly suspect when you consider that observations have proven that the Sun is an X-Ray and UV variable star. Energy conversion levels depend on the receiver and the spectrum. A "glow in the dark" sticker will absorb one type of energy and not another. A solar panel will only receive X W/m2 but most of the sun's energy will pass right through it.

You've provided one graph, I've provided over a dozen that do show a correlation that continue even past the 1979 date which is derived from a graph that shows "temperature anomalies" without any definition for what constitutes "normal"

Sunspot activity is still in the Modern Maximum phase and has not decreased since 1979.

In the Astrophysical Journal in 1978, the following paper was written by Astrophysicsts stating that the Solar System was entering an Interstellar Cloud:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... .223..589V

Again, another variable.

Also, aside from TSI we should also consider TCRI (Total Cosmic Ray Irradiance), in the EU the Sun is charged electrically from the outside. Therefore, incoming radiation from the boundary of the heliosphere is every bit as that coming from the Sun.

[PersianPaladin]

You showed "Total Solar Irradiance vs. Temperature" but the calculated value for TSI is spectrally deficient. This data is not reliable since previous attempts to measure TSI did not include UV, X-Ray, Microwave, and other frequency wavelengths. Which is highly suspect when you consider that observations have proven that the Sun is an X-Ray and UV variable star. Energy conversion levels depend on the receiver and the spectrum. A "glow in the dark" sticker will absorb one type of energy and not another. A solar panel will only receive X W/m2 but most of the sun's energy will pass right through it.

You've provided one graph, I've provided over a dozen that do show a correlation that continue even past the 1979 date which is derived from a graph that shows "temperature anomalies" without any definition for what constitutes "normal"

Sunspot activity is still in the Modern Maximum phase and has not decreased since 1979.

In the Astrophysical Journal in 1978, the following paper was written by Astrophysicsts stating that the Solar System was entering an Interstellar Cloud:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... .223..589V

Again, another variable.

But these are irradiance values in Watts that are correllated to the 11-year solar cycle - and solar maxima = a peak in solar particles and the electric field. I'm not sure what your point is about other radiation values being "missed". Why would they peak at other times outside solar maxima or the usual solar cycle? I've looked into the effect of the solar cycle on the behaviour of comets, and maximum brightening of comets correllates when the sun is most active regarding its cycle.

As for the temperature value - again, provide proof that it is not reliable or somehow a deception. Temp data source:-

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius base period: 1951-1980
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

[PersianPaladin]

You've provided one graph, I've provided over a dozen that do show a correlation that continue even past the 1979 date which is derived from a graph that shows "temperature anomalies" without any definition for what constitutes "normal"

Cosmic rays do not come from the sun, btw.

[orrery]

You showed "Total Solar Irradiance vs. Temperature" but the calculated value for TSI is spectrally deficient. This data is not reliable since previous attempts to measure TSI did not include UV, X-Ray, Microwave, and other frequency wavelengths. Which is highly suspect when you consider that observations have proven that the Sun is an X-Ray and UV variable star. Energy conversion levels depend on the receiver and the spectrum. A "glow in the dark" sticker will absorb one type of energy and not another. A solar panel will only receive X W/m2 but most of the sun's energy will pass right through it.

You've provided one graph, I've provided over a dozen that do show a correlation that continue even past the 1979 date which is derived from a graph that shows "temperature anomalies" without any definition for what constitutes "normal"

Sunspot activity is still in the Modern Maximum phase and has not decreased since 1979.

In the Astrophysical Journal in 1978, the following paper was written by Astrophysicsts stating that the Solar System was entering an Interstellar Cloud:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... .223..589V

Again, another variable.

But these are irradiance values in Watts that are correllated to the 11-year solar cycle - and solar maxima = a peak in solar particles and the electric field. I'm not sure what your point is about other radiation values being "missed".

As for the temperature value - again, provide proof that it is not reliable or somehow a deception.

Proof of what? Irradiance values from what spectrum? You need to measure the amount of energy impacting a detector. Every detector ever used until the most modern times has no "integration" between the different spectrums. If TSI is the measure of Solar Activity then what spectrum are the detectors using to measure W/m2? What function was used? Most of these detectors were only using the "apparently brightness" of the Sun as measured with traditional visible light. They did not include, until very recently "TSI" that includes X-Ray, UV, Microwave and the "Total Energy"

The very act of producing a graph that goes back 100s of years for TSI is absolutely non-sensible because "Real TSI" measurements have only been available for a few years. How did they project X-Ray, UV, or Heliospheric Activity?

Cosmic Ray activity has gone up. "Visible Light Radiation Detectors" (What your graph calls TSI) have gone down while X-Ray, UV, and invisible light sources appear to have gone up in correlation with increased Cosmic Ray "solar input"

To me, this makes sense. As Cosmic Ray Input increases, the Sun favors higher energy level forms of Electromagnetic Radiation --- towards the UV, X-Ray band while it gets quieter in the lower energy levels such as "visible" As the Cosmic Ray graph shows an increase in CR activity since the period in question.

[orrery]

You've provided one graph, I've provided over a dozen that do show a correlation that continue even past the 1979 date which is derived from a graph that shows "temperature anomalies" without any definition for what constitutes "normal"

Cosmic rays do not come from the sun, btw.

I never said they do. Lets go over the Electric Sun model real fast.

[PersianPaladin]

Modulation of the solar luminosity by magnetically active regions was confirmed by satellite measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) by the ACRIM1 experiment on the Solar Maximum Mission (launched in 1980).[23] The modulations were later confirmed in the results of the ERB experiment launched on the Nimbus 7 satellite in 1978,[24] and satellite observation of solar irradiance continues today with ACRIM-3 and other satellite measurements.[1] Sunspots in magnetically active regions are cooler and 'darker' than the average photosphere and cause temporary decreases in TSI of as much as 0.3%. Faculae in magnetically active regions are hotter and 'brighter' than the average photosphere and cause temporary increases in TSI.

The net effect during periods of enhanced solar magnetic activity is increased radiant output of the sun because faculae are larger and persist longer than sunspots. Conversely, periods of lower solar magnetic activity and fewer sunspots (such as the Maunder Minimum) may correlate with times of lower terrestrial irradiance from the sun.[25]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Now, try to remember that graph that I posted showing solar irradiance and temperature from 1979 onwards. Why the discrepancy?

Please explain how the solar cycle does not cause a higher electric field and output of charged particles during maxima.

You presented papers talking about cosmic rays. Are you saying that cosmic rays did the job that the solar cycle was not able to do with regard to temperature forcing post 1979? Why are the results on cosmic rays simply talking about cloud generation and mostly a weak effect?

EDIT - Sunspot cycles and solar maxima are correllated with stronger magnetic activity, electrical fields and particle emission from the sun. I am trying to understand your argument, but not sure how to progress in this discussion. You are saying the sensors are not picking up anything - and I'm showing you that they have taken into account solar energy resulting from faculae tied to sunspots - which produce more heat and energy, etc. It's quite consistent.

Some people may assume cosmic ray particles entering the Earth are what is powering the sun. Until we go out and measure this as a fact, it is simply speculation. We need proper mapping of the sun's environment, double layers, etc IMO.

[orrery]

Paladin,

In keeping your explanation consistent with the Electric Sun theory:

The Sun is only a reflection of the incoming energy that is powering it. When the Sun's magnetic field weakens, it becomes more susceptible to Cosmic Rays. The majority of Cosmic Rays are deflected by the Sun's Magnetic Field and the Earth provides additional deflection.

However, we have measured a weakening of the Sun's magnetic field that is resulting in an increase in Cosmic Rays entering the Heliosphere and we are also measuring a weakening in the Earth's magnetic field.

Again, I will not repeat this again: Your graph is garbage and is not a measurement of TSI. It never was and never has been. Keeping in mind the graph you gave, I see traditional measurements that do not include GOES monitoring data or other lights. W/m2 are values that depend on the "detector" and the "material relationship" between that material and the light. The graph you provided is using data gathered from the exact same techniques that can be traced back to the 1600s.

A graph that uses the same measuring techniques based on traditions that go back to the 1600s are useless and are not applicable to Electric Sun interpretations of Heliospheric Energy. The Energy in the Heliosphere is not fueled internally by the Sun. The Sun is powered externally by an Influx of Cosmic Rays. We have already shown a significant level of increase in Cosmic Ray levels as well as an increase in Solar output of X-Ray emissions which are not being considered by the TSI measurement you've provided.

Your data is faulty and is spectrally deficient. Anyone who claims that "the Sun is not responsible for warming the Earth" is a fraud right off the bat, I don't believe anyone could make such a claim. Although I feel TSI is a useful data point in calculating Solar Activity, it does not tell us total solar activity. TSI has been calculated using the same technique for like 400 years and is completely ignorant of invisible electromagnetic forms of radiation like X-Ray.

Increased X-Ray and UV emissions and their effect on the climate has to be accompanied by a rigorous analysis of how they interact with the elements that make up the Earth and all its associative fields.

Again, I don't accept values of TSI calculated using the techniques in your graph.

Especially considering that the Sun is defined as an X-Ray Variable Star and TSI is completely devoid of X-Ray measurements.