Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A coronal hole link for you, Mike

Expand Messages
  • David
    The temperature anomaly of the terrestrial lower troposphere, inferred from the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometers, is found to be inversely correlated
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 5 9:33 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      "The temperature anomaly of the terrestrial lower troposphere,
      inferred from the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometers, is found
      to be inversely correlated with the area of the Sun covered by coronal
      holes. The correlation between the monthly time series of global
      tropospheric temperature anomaly and total coronal hole area from
      January 1979 to April 1998 has a Pearson coefficient of 0.46, which is
      different from zero at a 95% confidence level. Physical reasonings for
      the explained and unexplained parts of the correlation are discussed.
      The coronal hole area is a physical proxy for both the global-scale,
      22-yr geometrical and shorter-term, dynamical components of the cosmic
      ray modulation, as well as the corpuscular emission of the Sun. Other
      solar parameters that may indicate a solar radiative effect on climate
      are also evaluated. It is concluded that variable fluxes either of
      solar charged particles or cosmic rays modulated by the solar wind, or
      both, may influence the terrestrial tropospheric temperature on
      timescale of months to years."

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1999CfA...SSP.4862S
    • mike
      It s just more silly Bal or is it sali bull . . . http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1999CfA...SSP.4862S I would start from the end of the paper,
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 6 3:50 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        It's just more silly Bal or is it sali bull . . .

        http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1999CfA...SSP.4862S

        I would start from the end of the paper, pages 31-32, first. There you
        can see what the study finds . . . see it, if you don't appreciate the
        statistics they conclude with it. Now, I would be MOST concerned in
        looking at the graph in the years 1978/79 and 1988/89 La Nina years, and,
        of course, the studies end foward, which would have been post El Nino,
        during the cycle's peak. As you know, temperature anomalies haven't been
        as bad as 1998 but the solar cycle was going through it's double peak, so
        the data is selective that way. Otherwise, it is an interesting study
        and SUPPORTS what I am saying about an internal modulating ELECTRICAL
        aspect of the biosphere. Look at it this way--where their data
        diverged. During La Nina the colder anomalies off the coast of Peru
        SUPPORTS life there--upwelling of bio rich nutrients cause the waters,
        while colder, to be paradoxically more conductive. That is because
        living chemistry is more conductive than the diffused chemistries.
        Therefore, the electro-magnetic dynamics that are at the heart of this
        paper's discussion become more important. And remember, this variable
        impedance is NOT coupled directly to the ocean surface temperature, BUT
        IS DEPENDANT ON THE DIRECTION OF CURRENT, where induction will cause
        relative cirrus cloud feedbacks. While this impact is most obvious
        globally during La Nina, climate cycles biologically EVERYWHERE. The
        authors here have no bio or significant "pattern" EMF training. And for
        a fact, Soon and Baliunas are politically motivated, with Baliunas
        speaking at Republican fundraisers and pushing fascist oil policies.
        Finally, and I don't quite get how this can be ignored, but CO2 IS
        electrically significant, and biologically significant, and the evidene
        continues to support global "fever", just not in the coupled way that
        these scientists, without bio or EMF training, consider.

        But here is what they admit from the paper itself:

        i A further difficulty in studying the sun-climate connection is the
        compleixty of the terrestrial response. One example is the possible,
        subtile sensitivity of the ocean radiant heating rates to changes in the
        color (energy distribution) of the Sun alone, even if the total iradiance
        were to remain constant. This mechanism works by way of spectral-
        selective scattering and absorbing media in the ocean (e.g.,
        phytoplankton/chlorphyll; Livinston 1994) or in the air (e.g., low-level
        clouds; Siegel, Wesberry, & Ohlmann 1999), although the effects are
        poorly quantified.

        . . .

        i The second study of cloud cover and charged particles used an
        independant set of data covering 1990-1995 . . . to extend the previous
        correlation in time (Menzel, Wylie, & Strabala 1997). However, Menzel et
        al. (1997) found that a good correlation exists only for cirrus cloud
        cover and neutron count.

        i Several of the major excursions in the MSU global temperature record
        that are not traced by the coronal hole area may be explained by other
        documented terrestrial colmatic anomalies. For example, large dynamical
        warmings of the El Nino events . . . The largest, unexplained mismatch
        between global tropospheric tempertues and the tow coronal hole cures is
        the alge cooling event persisting throughout the whole of 1989. The 1989
        tropospheric cooling may corresopnd to a large La Nina cooling episode of
        1988-1989 . . . clearly illustrats a complex interaction of the tropical
        ocean and the global atmosphere adn calls for continued, clous
        consideration of internal climatic factors . . .

        Pages 16-18. All good material--too much to type.

        Under concluding sections:

        i Baranyui et al (1998) inferred a complex pattern of surface temperature
        response under the assumptions of a direct influence by solar charged
        particles and the solar and terrestrial magnetic fields coupling schemie
        of Simon & Legrand (1992). They found evidendce not only for the opposit
        responses in the surface temperatues from solar particle events
        originating from from polar and equatorial regions, but also for regional
        resonses sensitive to the location relative to the terrestrial magnetic
        meridian lin. These patterns of response reverse when the polarity of
        the Sun switches.

        The last paragraph here is interesting to me, in that the biosphere has
        evolved a variable impedance/resistance to the electrical and magnetic
        flux--where poliarity of the flux isn't as important because the
        biosphere can deal with it either way by altering how it resists this
        flux. Again, warmer surface conditions like an El Nino will be, it is
        true, more conductive because the warmer salt water is, the better it
        will carry a current, BUT, warmer surface conditions stop nutrients from
        reaching the surface biosphere, and so, biologically speaking, chemical
        containment of more conductive surface chemistries is reduced.
      • David
        Hehehe, there s always a but, isn t there?! ;-) I must confess I haven t had a chance to read the paper yet. I just saw the abstract whole doing the
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 6 4:57 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hehehe, there's always a "but," isn't there?! ;-)

          I must confess I haven't had a chance to read the paper yet. I just
          saw the abstract whole doing the coronal hole magnetic field line
          research and thought it sounded interesting. I'll read it this week.
          It's interesting to me, however, that you seem to be of the belief
          that a person speaking at a Republican fundraiser automatically brings
          their scientific objectivity into question. Do you say the same thing
          about scientists who speak at Democratic fundraisers? If not, why
          not? Couldn't a scientist be biased just as easily in one direction
          as the other? Also, are all scientists somehow supposed to be be
          completely apolitical? Does having a liberal or conservative
          political leaning automatically disqualify them from doing legitimate
          research?
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.