ben your the one that said "space weather" had no effect on our weather!
They say you are wrong.
"Meanwhile, high above your head, a new portal is opening, connecting your planet to the sun."
NASA
Remember the Wright Bros ben
Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
- Status
ben your the one that said "space weather" had no effect on our weather!
They say you are wrong.
"Meanwhile, high above your head, a new portal is opening, connecting your planet to the sun."
NASA
Remember the Wright Bros ben
That wasn't space weather, Haig! You quoted an article about thunderstorms affecting the atmosphere---it had nothing to do with space weather!
No they don't---read it, dude. You just quoted an article about thunderstorms affecting the ionosphere, not the other way around.
Yes, a low-energy, low-flux portal with no climate consequences whatsoever.
"Weather on Earth has a surprising connection to space weather"
Also the jet stream is disturbed by this "space weather" and that triggers our weather in the lower atmosphere, according to PC
Yet when the proportion of energy possible from the magnetic rope is given and it is way small by a huge factor, you argued from god of the gaps.
1/1000000000 is a very small amount to effect the energy budget of the earth.
When you show the actuakl data thats ays there is an effect then it is more than a hypothesis, you should try to understand the argument you say are settled. they are not but what fraction of 1/1000000000 is significant?
That is a really weak appeal to emotion, it does not belong here, and is quite inaccurate.
Wraping your self in the flag of teh Wright brothers makes you a scoundrel not a patriot!
And that is just another fable and myth, one person said it could not be done and you are hiding from the facts as presented to you.
Really weak as a form of argument.
And you have just pointedly dismissed counter argument with a hand wave and appeals to emotion. Sorry this is the JREF, that will not wash.
Except that maybe they are wrong.
You should not present things without trying to understand the arguments.
Doing the math doesn’t cancel the evidence PC has gathered.
So you don't like my story about the Wright Bros, tough!
The point is, as you well know, evidence, actually somebody doing it! or a scientific demonstration! knocks the math into a cocked hat.
Sure they could be wrong, but there is sufficient doubt in my mind to say "I'm not sure it's us, it may be the Sun"
READ THE ARTICLE, HAIG. It's an article about lower-atmosphere weather---powered by the TSI---shoving the ionosphere around. It's an effect in the opposite direction of your intended effect.
If I told you that a mosquito could not lift a bowling ball, would you rebut me by quoting an article about a bowling ball crushing a mosquito?
Also the jet stream is disturbed by this "space weather" and that triggers our weather in the lower atmosphere, according to PC
Where does NASA say that, Haig?
(I think I have an appropriate rebuttal to Haig's line of argument.)
So you're saying Fermilab is wrong?
I have a few reliable sourses one of them is Fermilab.
There you go. It is clear that Fermilab disagrees with you, Haig.
I think that's more a reflection on you than me
"This discovery has immediate implications for space weather, identifying four sectors on the Earth where space storms may produce greater ionospheric disturbances. North America is in one of these sectors, which may help explain why the U.S. suffers uniquely extreme ionospheric conditions during space weather events," Immel said.
"it is clear that the ionospheric flow field is fully ... polar wind velocity and its relationship to ionospheric conditions" Wiki
You seems to be missunderstanding what your reading. The first quote, of mine (bold) you use,is NASA saying what you said couldn't happen and the second quote,of mine you use, is PC.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Polar wind
The ionosphere has nothing to do with weather and neither does the polar wind. As ben m said it is the other way around. This is confirmed by the very article you cited "Researchers discovered that tides of air generated by intense thunderstorm activity over South America, Africa and Southeast Asia were altering the structure of the ionosphere."
Hope that clears it up for you.
Last edited:
No, this is what I've said already. Please pay attention very closely.
The ionosphere (roughly the same thing as thermosphere) is a very, very thin layer of the atmosphere. It gets pushed around by the solar wind, as I said post #106. Does that look familiar? In that post I point out that the thermosphere does not push the rest of the atmosphere around, and has no effect on the climate.
In the above handful of posts, we also find that thunderstorms push the thermosphere around. I pointed out again that the thermosphere is a very low-mass wisp of the atmosphere which has no effect on climate.
Do you see my point? My point is that the thermosphere/ionosphere have no effect on the climate. I don't care whether solar flares can affect the ionosphere. (They can; so can gamma-ray bursts, as a matter of fact.) I don't care whether thunderstorms can affect the ionosphere. (They can, as NASA said.) "X affects the ionosphere" does not bear any relationship to "X affects the climate."
What part of this do you find unclear?
The ionosphere (roughly the same thing as thermosphere) is a very, very thin layer of the atmosphere. It gets pushed around by the solar wind, as I said post #106. Does that look familiar? In that post I point out that the thermosphere does not push the rest of the atmosphere around, and has no effect on the climate.
In the above handful of posts, we also find that thunderstorms push the thermosphere around. I pointed out again that the thermosphere is a very low-mass wisp of the atmosphere which has no effect on climate.
Do you see my point? My point is that the thermosphere/ionosphere have no effect on the climate. I don't care whether solar flares can affect the ionosphere. (They can; so can gamma-ray bursts, as a matter of fact.) I don't care whether thunderstorms can affect the ionosphere. (They can, as NASA said.) "X affects the ionosphere" does not bear any relationship to "X affects the climate."
What part of this do you find unclear?
Yes. Weather on Earth effects space weather. Not space weather affects Earth weather. And, more significantly, not space weather affects Earth climate.
Right. SO your source is PC, not NASA. Stop trying to claim NASA supports you when it clearly doesn't.Also the jet stream is disturbed by this "space weather" and that triggers our weather in the lower atmosphere, according to PC
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
In addition, he was making an argument from authority. When someone makes an argument from authority it’s perfectly acceptable to question that persons credentials.
Guys "space weather" MAY affect Earth weather that's all I'm saying.
How does Space Weather affect Earth and Human Society?
“Space weather probably alters the weather and climate on our planet, though we don't yet have a precise understanding of those influences.”
“It seems likely that variations in the Sun should cause changes in Earth's weather and climate. They probably do, but scientists aren't yet sure exactly how those connections work”
“Solar and space weather variations may influence rates of cloud formation and the freezing of airborne water droplets. The Sun's multifaceted influence on Earthly weather is the subject of much continuing research.”
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/space_weather/sw_intro/sw_affect_us.html&edu=high
Hope that clears it up for you all
I'm not suggesting something that's not in the realms of the possible, so cut me some slack!
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Haig "space weather" CANNOT affect Earth weather that's all the physics is saying.
Hope that clears it up for you
ETA
However that is using the definition of "space weather" on the web site you cite which is basically the stuff you have been mentioning (flares, etc.).
If you extend "space weather" to include the normal output from the Sun then of course it affects the Earth's climate:
- Trends in the total output (TSI) correlate with the global temperature until recent times. Over the last 35 years the TSI has decreased but the global temperature has increased.
- Sunspot activity affects climate, e.g. the Maunder Minimum is associated with the Little Ice Age.
- There is a disputed theory that cosmic rays have a role in climate. The variations of the Earth's magnetic filed caused by the solar wind is one of many factors in that theory.
Last edited:
[/B]
Haig "space weather" CANNOT affect Earth weather that's all the physics is saying.
Hope that clears it up for you
Not so sure about that
"They're called Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes, or TGFs, and very little is known about them. They seem to have a connection with lightning,"
"Individual particles in a TGF acquire a huge amount of energy, sometimes in excess of 20 mega-electron volts (MeV). In contrast, the colorful auroras that light up the skies at high latitudes are powered by particles with less than one thousandth as much energy."
"What causes these high-energy flashes? Do they help trigger lightning--or does lightning trigger them? Could they be responsible for some of the high-energy particles in the Van Allen radiation belts"
"The powerful flashes were coming--surprise!--from Earth's atmosphere."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/29jan_firefly.htm
Another possible example of "space weather" connecting with Earth weather?
Are things becoming a bit clearer now?
Piers, you're really fishing at this point. You appear to be Googling for "space weather atmosphere" and posting whatever random links come back.
Step back a few stages. What the heck are you trying to argue? Do your posts have any support for that argument?
"Space weather is important to climate; look, Piers Corbyn (and some Russian paper I've never read) says so." Support: links to Piers Corbyn's own PR. (Sorry, citation of an unreliable source.)
"Space weather is important to climate; look at the huge numbers associated with these flux events". Support: links to space weather articles with large numbers in them. (Sorry, wrong, your numbers are small in the units relevant to climate.)
"I don't know how, but maybe including space weather in our models will revolutionize climate science. I just want to throw the idea out there." Support: a link to a mainstream climate science organization (UCAR) that has been including space weather in its models for 30+ years and finding nothing to support you or Corbyn. Did you notice their huge web pages about the effect of CO2 on climate change?
Step back a few stages. What the heck are you trying to argue? Do your posts have any support for that argument?
"Space weather is important to climate; look, Piers Corbyn (and some Russian paper I've never read) says so." Support: links to Piers Corbyn's own PR. (Sorry, citation of an unreliable source.)
"Space weather is important to climate; look at the huge numbers associated with these flux events". Support: links to space weather articles with large numbers in them. (Sorry, wrong, your numbers are small in the units relevant to climate.)
"I don't know how, but maybe including space weather in our models will revolutionize climate science. I just want to throw the idea out there." Support: a link to a mainstream climate science organization (UCAR) that has been including space weather in its models for 30+ years and finding nothing to support you or Corbyn. Did you notice their huge web pages about the effect of CO2 on climate change?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Definitely sure about thatNot so sure about that
...snipped text with random bolding...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/29jan_firefly.htm
Another possible example of "space weather" connecting with Earth weather?
Are things becoming a bit clearer now?
You have an uncanny ability to misinterpret science articles.
TGF's are either
- Emitted by lightening (nothing to do with "space weather" or
- created by something else within the Earth's atmosphere (again nothing to do with "space weather").
Are things becoming a bit clearer now, Haig?
That's cute Ben
The whole point of this thread is looking at the Russians idea that the Sun is the main driver of climate change on Earth and that they expect a long period of cooling.
All I'm trying to do is see if they could be right? Also, to ask how we’d cope in a LIA situation?
So, PC and all the "space weather" stuff follow from that: as supporting theories and possible control systems.
You guys call the Russians fools, Piers a fraud and space weather as irrelevant to our weather and climate. I'm just trying to show you’re possibly wrong in your judgements.
Definitely sure about that
You have an uncanny ability to misinterpret science articles.
TGF's are either
Another impossible example of "space weather" connecting with Earth weather.
- Emitted by lightening (nothing to do with "space weather" or
- created by something else within the Earth's atmosphere (again nothing to do with "space weather").
Are things becoming a bit clearer now, Haig?
Your entitled to your view
I happen to think it's all connected, but your so sure of AGW you won't even consider other possibilities.
Yes, things are becoming a bit clearer now, chances are your wrong and the Russians (and PC) are right.
But Astrometria has nothing to do with flares, fluxes, winds, and space weather; they're looking for variations in total solar irradiance. TSI. The optical/IR-dominated solar output which we've been telling you is 10^9 times more powerful than space weather. Nothing whatsoever to do with space weather, Haig.
Yes, the TSI matters for climate. Everyone knows that. Its variation, including the "grand minimum" that Astrometria is looking for, has a direct effect on the climate because it's a lot of energy arriving at the surface.
You yourself linked to http://skepticalscience.com/What-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-Maunder-Minimum-levels.html which shows what the climate will look like IF astrometria finds evidence of a TSI decline. Result: CO2 is more important.
And again, "space weather" doesn't figure in at all and doesn't matter.
Yes, the TSI matters for climate. Everyone knows that. Its variation, including the "grand minimum" that Astrometria is looking for, has a direct effect on the climate because it's a lot of energy arriving at the surface.
You yourself linked to http://skepticalscience.com/What-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-Maunder-Minimum-levels.html which shows what the climate will look like IF astrometria finds evidence of a TSI decline. Result: CO2 is more important.
And again, "space weather" doesn't figure in at all and doesn't matter.
- Status