Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the sun too complex for a parallel plane model?
#1
Hello All,
Question - Is the sun too complex to be represented by a parallel plane model, specifically in regard of it's direct effects upon earth's climate system as a whole?

The answer, specifically because of the earth's hot core, and the sun's direct effects upon that, can only be YES.

By looking at the sun from only a "luminosity" point of view, and modeling it as such using a parallel plane/s model approach,
then,
"we" have unintentionally omitted, or rather in some cases, seemingly deliberately excluded,
all of the sun's other emissions and types of emissions that can, and do, effect earth's climate system overall.
Most notably the sun's effects upon the earth's core.

ie,
Oliver K Manuel's works, including,
Neutron Repulsion
and,
Nellie the neutron. New Clear Science. Oliver K Manuel.

Also,
Joe Olsen's works. Also including,
The Missing Geothermal Flux - Joe Olsen.

Plus,

Solar Climate Change: Friedemann Freund — The Future of forecasting Earthquakes

and
Solar Climate Change: The hair-raising truth about the Cornish tsunami triggered by under-sea earthquake: Updated by Piers Corbyn
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#2
AND, recently Svensmark's ideas / suggestions / works seem to be getting a wider audience,
and let us be fair here, seemingly proven to boot.

CERN experiment confirms cosmic ray action
The global warmists’ dam breaks
(Nigel) Calder's Updates blog.
Wednesday, August 24th, 2011


Excerpt,
" Long-anticipated results of the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Geneva appear in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature (25 August).
The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change
(see my 17 July post - CERN chief forbids “interpretation” of CLOUD results).
The implication was that they should on no account endorse the Danish heresy – Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that
most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity,
resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures.
"

References cited.

J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, 2011.
The authors list and abstract are available at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10343.html

H. Svensmark & E. Friis-Christensen, E., J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225–1232, 1997

Relevant Danish experimental reports since 2006, not cited in the new CLOUD paper

Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj,
Experimental Evidence for the Role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’,
Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Vol. 463, pp. 385–96, 2007 (online release 2006).
This was the SKY experiment in a basement in Copenhagen.

Martin Andreas Bødker Enghoff; Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen; Torsten Bondo, Matthew S. Johnson, Sean Paling and Henrik Svensmark,
Evidence for the Role of Ions in Aerosol Nucleation’,
Journal of Physical Chemistry A, Vol: 112, pp. 10305-10309, 2008.
Experiment in the Boulby deep mine in England.

M.B. Enghoff, J. O. Pepke Pedersen, U. I. Uggerhøj, S. M. Paling, and H. Svensmark,
Aerosol nucleation induced by a high energy particle beam,”
Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L09805, 2011.
Experiment with an accelerator in Aarhus.

In the following comments to the article, remembering,
" The Director General of CERN stirred controversy last month, by saying that
the CLOUD team’s report should be politically correct about climate change
"
I noticed this,
timetochooseagain says:
25/08/2011 at 02:48


" It would seem that New Scientist is engaging in some strange spin control: write up an article about the paper, but
somehow miss the main “new” finding of the paper in favoring of making “news”
about the very general “findings” about characteristics of atmospheric CCNs, and say that
the most important finding of the paper is that it shows another source of anthropogenic climate change:


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21...imate.html "

The two articles upon the same subject, do make interesting comparing.
Please see my signature....
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#3
" Is the sun too complex for a parallel plane model?"

No, another Derek red herring, I'm afraid, much like P/4.
Reply
#4
That, Climate Realist is merely an assertion by you, which is false incidentally,
it is NOT, in any way an attempt at discussion on your part.

Yet again, you post using obvious debating tactics.
I have generally given up replying to you because of your continual use of, and in my opinion deplorable use, by you, of, debating tactics.

It is sad you, Climate Realist, obviously also still do not understand P/4.
Even something so basic as, a globe has TWICE the surface area of a disc of the same diameter,
not FOUR TIMES the surface area of the disc,
UNLESS YOU IGNORE ONE SIDE OF THE DISC, ie, night.

K&T by it's own logic should be using TWO globes, one for day, AND one for night.
THAT is why there is no night in K&T.
What K&T actually is, is two hemispheres, both illuminated by half power suns, twelve hours apart.
And then the resulting input is "averaged" to a 1/4 of the suns actual power.

If we looked at a square meter of the earth's surface we can easily see it traverses across,
a lite hemisphere in twelve hours and an unlit hemisphere in twelve hours (allowing for seasonal and latitudinal variations), constantly repeating.
The recent Milford Haven thread shows this beyond reasonable doubt.
P/4 is unphysical, unreal, and maths determining the physics, not describing the physics as maths should only do.

I have frequently made my position very clear and why,
namely, debate is negative in intent, discussion is positive in intent.
I do not debate, so no further replies from me, to you, unless you change your tactics.
Reply
#5
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8254

Posted by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Aug 27th 2011, 2:03 AM EDT
Citizens,

Let's think clearly. Svensmark et al who are serious scientists have impressively re-established what was known 50 years ago
- that charged particles induce cloud formation (as in the Cloud Chamber particle detector).

However while the supposedly consequent theory that Galactic Cosmic rays are the agency of sun-earth connections might feel nice
a look at EVIDENCE shows that it is delusional nonsense and as absurd as the CO2 theory which some seek to replace with GCR.

Please have a look at
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/cosmic-...r-wind.htm
and elsewhere on CR:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=...position=3

The warmists are promoting GCR delusionism as THE ALTERNATIVE to CO2 religion like mad because
they know it is twaddle and in due course will say so - leaving their pack of lies as "THE ANSWER".

WHY would CERN - a total tool of European Union Governments who are 100% committed to CO2 delusionism
- put such effort into little more than re-inventing the wheel?

Please GET REAL and read the facts!

Incidentally if GCR was of any weather importance then we would have evidence that Cosmic Rays are driving extreme weather events - like the formation of IRENE***.
However no such evidence exists and all extreme weather events it appears are driven by SOLAR magnetic particle - Lunar effects.
The GCR theory exists 'absolutely elsewhere' entirely in the imagination and like all false theories has no practical - predictive that is - power, whatsoever.

Cheers Piers


As the above does not describe Piers criticisms of GCR, I followed the below link, which does have a very clear description.
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/cosmic-...r-wind.htm
" However, Piers Corbyn at http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarti...?a=345&c-5 (go to http://www.weatheraction.com and click on Piers Corbyn comments 18th May)
pours a little cold water on the enthusiasm registered on the blogosphere - and his comments are very interesting, to say the least.
He wrote the riposte in response to Anthony Watts posting, and actually left a comment at http://wattsupwiththat.com
to make the point in which he said 'this is a theory that does not work'
- which is even more negative than anything the AGW lot have said.
His argument is that cosmic rays and solar activity are inverse proxies of each other so seeing one does not mean the other causes anything.
An observed relation between solar activity and any kind of earth atmospheric variable does not need cosmic rays as the agency.
The agent is solar particles which have 300 times the energy flux on average of cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are background.
In addition, if cosmic rays are the agents linking solar activity to the atmosphere of the earth then
since they follow the Sun's 11 year cycle it would follow that global temperatures should also have an 11 year cycle - but they do not
(see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307 ).
He then claims that Weather Action forecasts extreme weather events by observing solar activity (flares and fast solar wind proton boosts etc)
which cause ionospheric/magnetic effects, shifts in the jet streams, tornadoes, and extreme or sudden weather events.
There is no observed modulation of cosmic rays on these short timescales so they can't effect a change in weather or climate
(climate being the sum of weather over a longer period of time).
He then suggests readers link to a video of solar action driving changes in the jet stream (see http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarti...?a=3188c=1 )
which ended the Pakistan super-flood and the Russian heat wave last year.
He says jet stream shifts change climate and cosmic rays have nothing to do with this process.
"

I distinctly remember listening to Piers Corbyn asking Dr. Miskolczi a question at the end of his Heartland 2008 New York CC presentation.
Piers stressed the 11 year and 22 year cycles, but I did not understand at the time.
I do not think virtually anyone else in the room at the time did either.
The above, now 3+ years later suddenly puts Piers questioning on a more understandable basis.
If only I could remember what his question to Dr. Miskolczi was in full...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)