Following Anthony Watt's site, I've come across mention of the Solar Cycle 24 and the high likelihood that we are in for a lengthy period of cooling of the earth's climate, (some wag suggested we name it "The Al Gore Cooling Period") the compelling images of the ongoing zero activity on the sun's surface led me to dig a bit deeper. Leif Svalgaard's comments on the WUWT article suggest he is aware of the EU theory, if only because he uses such language as this:
Follow it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/t ... #more-5688 somebody here put up a thread which went nowhere with this, so I'm hoping to elicit some responses with this new angle.A charged particle will gyrate around the magnetic field in opposite directions for the away and toward field lines. The net result will be a drift in the direction of the big arrow. Particles with the opposite charge will gyrate in the opposite direction and their ‘big arrow’ will point the other way, so at the place of the big arrows you have opposite charges going opposite ways, voila: a current. This current will serve to keep the two magnetic fields apart. with no particles to carry the current, the two magnetic fields would reconnect and cancel each other out.
Of course, it's entirely possible that even though he's using the same language, he denies the EU connection (this reminds me of the annecdote that Gypsies from Hungary and Rumania, speaking in the Roma language, will completely fail to understand one another, because they are from different 'tribes', despite the fact that they speak the same language ... they simply can not recognise one another because of deeply seated preconceptions and beliefs i.e "you're not one of my people, how could I possibly understand you?")
Svalgaard's studies seem highly positive for the EU camp, and I would like to know if members here have been following his work, or if anybody knows whether he has dismissed the EU theory, which in my view would be a handicap in his conclusions. From Svalgaard I came to Landscheidt, http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2009/ ... tum-graph/
where I find the significant theory of the planets affecting the sun's behaviour, although it seems they are stuck with the gravity-only theory.
It seems particularly important to eventually tie up the different fields of study which currently (pardon the pun) point to a more sensible theory of earth's climate 'forcings', i.e to a better understanding of climate change (I understand change is what climate does, not something we do to it which is not to say human activity has a negligable effect, simply that we are not nearly as influential as the AGW camp would have us believe, and man-made Co2 is almost certainly not a major factor.)
For example, if we could get Landscheidt et al to include an EU/gravitational theory governing the force of Neptune and Uranus's effects on the Grand Minima and solar modulation, it seems likely we would be a step closer to a unifying theory of an electric solar system/planetary interaction and its influence on our little planet's climate. On the page at Landscheidt's site discussing the influence of Neptune and Uranus, there seems to be total and complete exclusion of even a hint that what may be involved is something called electricity, and it seems highly likely they are in the opposing camp. Which means it's up to someone reading this thread, to pull the two together.
As a non-scientist, it's easy to read what I want to into the information I can't fully comprehend, but everything seems to be pointing towards a significant upset in mainstream scientific 'understanding' of what makes the planet's climate tick, with the sun the primary suspect for a Leading Role, along with the PDO/Milankovitch cycles etc. which the sun itself may be an influence upon.
The AGW Bad Science is losing ground thanks to the determination and consistency of sites such as WUWT, CO2 Sceptics, Climate Audit and others, not to mention the AGW crowd's own bad behaviour (Gore and Hansen's hysteria is becoming self defeating, witness recent inflammatory articles and actions by the NASA's scientist in articles equating coal trains with Holocaust death trains, and his support of illegal activities by environmentalist activist groups.) But the arguments against the human induced Co2 climate change lack weight, largely because they haven't had an Al Gore figure or Hansen-type scientist to lead the argument and present the data. If the Svalgaard/Landscheidt studies could be unified and reinforced using the Electric Universe theories I am sure a strong argument/discussion would be forthcoming leading to a ground shift in the Climate Change studies and projections. For me, an important missing component to these scattered theories is the inclusion, or application to the theories, of an Electric Universe theory, without this, the conclusions and explanations are holding back the science.
Anybody interested in taking this up?
