While I’ve been on job training, house maintenance, vehicle restoration, food production and science sabbatical, Tenuc and Roger A have started an interesting conversation on the suggestions thread. I had reached a point where I couldn’t see the forest for the trees, and have taken time off to do practical work I’d neglected while the science mulls over. I’ve also been reading Miles Mathis book ‘Un-Unified Field’ closely and I’ll be formulating a post about planetary mass and charge when I can find time. Thanks to all for keeping this blog alive while I’m wrapped up in other affairs.
Couple of interesting and pertinent papers on solar activity and climate from the Miles Mathis collection, could for the basis for a useful discussion here, I think…
The Hole at the Centre of the Sun.
“…by this equation we can find the fraction that goes to charge, which is 15%. That leaves 85% of the energy of the Sun produced by fusion. That makes sense, because it explains why all this loss of charge energy doesn’t cause the Earth to freeze over like Neptune…”
How the Charge Field Causes the Ice Ages
“…Over time, the high end of the Solar disk makes a full revolution, returning to its original position. This is one cycle, and it is this cycle that takes about 23,000 years. But the nodes will be in line with the galactic core in two positions: when the high end is at ¼ and ¾. Or, if the galactic core is north, the nodes will line up with it when the high end is east or west. And so we get an alignment every 11,500 years or so. Alarms should be going off in your head now, because that number is already an important one in the history of ice ages. According to the math of many, interglacials have lasted about 11 thousands years. This is where that number comes from. 11.5 is half of 23…”
Roger Andrews says:
Agreed. Might as well go with this.
Mathis’ theory implies sinusoidal ice-age cyclicity, but the plot of the Vostok ice core record he presents shows a clear sawtooth pattern, with the recoveries from ice ages being much more abrupt than the descents. This suggest to me that while the sun may provide the push, something else provides the shove.
@Roger – I agree, the fall in temperature is slower than the previous rise and has a distinctive and fairly regular saw-tooth profile. I don’t see a link to CO2 and wonder if the eratic link with dust could be a sympom of the drier climate during deep glaciation?
It is interesting that the slope of maximum temperature during the decline show almost the same approximate trend, while the minimum trend varies somewhat…
Roger Andrews says:
Don’t know what the gradients mean, but more dust = less incident sunlight = cooling.
Which brings up an issue that everyone seems to have forgotten about – “global dimming”. A 2008 JGR paper on this by Wild (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2008JD011470.pdf) notes that while TSI hardly varied between 1980 and 2000, solar radiation incident at the Earth’s surface increased by maybe 5 w/sq m, presumably because of decreases in aerosols and cloud cover. It also shows some very interesting global dimming/brightening/surface air temperature relationships (see Figure 9). I think this would also make a good thread if Tallbloke were around to post it.