A coronal hole link for you, Mike
- "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."
- It's just more silly Bal or is it sali bull . . .
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
. . .
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.
- 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