Thursday, December 25, 2008

Merry Christmas



It's raining in San Diego.

Apparently rainfall is correlated to the Sun's magnetic activity: Blame the Sun for a Cloudy Day?

An Australian researcher has linked the sun's magnetic activity to rainfall patterns in his country over the past century. The connection is solid enough that meteorologists might be able to use it to make better long-term weather predictions. But experts remain cautious about the wider implications of the findings.

Scientists have long known that the sun plays a key role in Earth's weather patterns. For example, the number of sunspots on its surface--dark zones of intense magnetic activity--peaks about every 11 years, followed by a period of dormancy. The cycle causes swings in sea-surface temperatures--more sunspots mean warmer oceans, and fewer mean chillier waters--but the effect is small. There's also a 22-year cycle, in which the sun changes the polarity of its magnetic field, but it's unclear how that phenomenon affects Earth.

Now geographer Robert Baker of the University of New England, Armidale, in Australia, has linked solar magnetic activity to Earth's climate--at least regionally. Using sunspot counts and Australian meteorological data, as well as NASA satellite data for more recent years, he tracked sunspots and rainfall in Australia from 1876 to 2006. In this month's issue of Geographical Research, Baker reports that the amount of rainfall in most regions of the country tracked the 22-year magnetic cycle almost exactly. "It was unbelievable," Baker says. At the height of magnetic activity, rainfall across most of the country was plentiful. At the other end of the cycle, many of those same regions experienced severe droughts. The findings are particularly compelling, Baker says, because even though the lengths of the magnetic cycles are not precise and can vary by several years, the rainfall patterns followed them.

So what's behind the connection? Baker thinks it has to do with the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation hitting Earth. When the reversing of polarity approaches, he explains, the sun's magnetic field weakens, allowing more UV energy to reach our planet. More UV radiation kills off some of the oceans' plankton, which produce dimethyl sulfide, one of the primary atmospheric chemicals involved in cloud formation, and fewer clouds mean less rainfall.

Based on the 130 years of data, Baker predicts that the current solar cycle, which reached a minimum in 2007, will continue a bit longer. In fact, he says, "there could be a 100-year minimum in solar activity," meaning much of Australia could experience a prolonged drought.

"This could be an important paper," says climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He explains that current climate models don't give the solar effect much weight in general, because scientists think it is overwhelmed by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But if there's a mechanism by which the sun's variations are tied directly to weather patterns, such as the effect of UV radiation on cloud formation, he says, the sun may have a greater impact than the models are showing. As a result, the models might not be creating an accurate picture for the future.

6 comments:

Louis Hissink said...

The next step is to work out what causes the sunspot cycle

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Yes, it would be nice to understand the sunspot cycle, but also it would be interesting to understand larger Sun activity cycles or anonmalous events like the "little ice age" which seems to have been corrolated with electric Sun activity.

According to the Electric Universe theory the Sun is a receiver of electric currents from the larger galaxtic Birkeland currents.

If so, then for causes outside our solar system these galaxtic Birkeland currents also fluctuate, which would effect the electrical output of the Sun.

Wallace Thornhill has an interesting article titled: Electric Weather (Holoscience), which brings up the issue of Man being able to influence precipitation.

And, if electrical dynamics influence or even control the weather, conventional meteorologists will never fully understand the forces driving weather until they take into account electrical phenomenon, here, on Earth.

Louis Hissink said...

Anaconda

You might be interested in researching the Korean Choson annals covering the period prior to the LIA, in which the earth seemed to have travelled through a large meteorite swarm that caused all sorts of natural calamities as described in the Choson annals.

One should also think about the earth being shifted slightly off its axis, causing Greenland to end up in more arctic latitudes than during the MWP.

I have a suspicion that England, Europe were at lower latitudes during the MWP than they are now.

The mechanism for this is not plates moving about etc, but the earth changing its axis of spin as the result of some external force, here probably the electrical interaction with the meterite swarm.

Mike Bailley, the dendro scientist in Ireland, has reearched earlier periods of global catastrophe ~ 600 AD which also seem to be associated with meteorite activity.

We are only starting on this journey :-)

Louis Hissink said...

Best url for Choson Annals

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/korea/

Anaconda said...

Louis Hissink:

Thank you, I appreciate the link to the Choson Annals. I reviewed it.

What would it be about meteorite showers that would drop the temperature?

Also, I find it interesting the author of the study would dismiss the Eddy hypothesis of decreased sunspot activity (causing the Little Ice Age), seemingly, out of hand, upon his noting of increased meteorite activity -- perhaps, could the two seperate phenomenon be related in some unknown way?

LH: "One should also think about the earth being shifted slightly off its axis, causing Greenland to end up in more arctic latitudes than during the MWP."

What scientific evidence do you cite for this hypothesis?

Without something more, it seems like idle speculation on your part.

LH: "I have a suspicion that England, Europe were at lower latitudes during the MWP than they are now."

Again, what evidence would you point to?

LH: "...[T]he earth changing its axis of spin as the result of some external force, here probably the electrical interaction with the meterite swarm."

Interesting.

Please, expand on this idea because, while I have read discussions on meteorites in the Thunderbolts.info Picture of the Day, I have not read discussion regarding meteorite showers having a cumulative electrical effect on the Earth or its axis of rotation.

I'm not saying that meteorite showers wouldn't have an electric dynamic, mind you, just that I haven't seen the idea discussed.

Although, in a nagging fashion, I'm left wondering if there isn't abit of "collect all the observed phenomenon into the Electric Universe orbit" going on, here.

Louis, I'll be frank, that seems to be the case in regards to Expanding Earth theory. Wallace Thornhill seemingly dismisses the idea out of hand, because it steps on the Electric Universe theory, so, also, you seemingly parrot the Electric Universe party-line.

(Be mindful, I am convinced of Electric Universe theory, though wary of some of the more provocative claims like Earth being an "invader" planet brought into the Sun's solar system under the wing of a wondering 'brown dwarf', which itself may be Saturn!)

(Also, be mindful that my hypothesis of the "mechanism" of Expanding Earth theory is based on scientifically confirmed electrically charge particals, ions, flowing from the Sun to the Earth [based on Electric Universe theory.])

Offering hypothesis with little supportive reasoning is intriquing, but with nothing more just idle speculation.

Anaconda said...

I'M NOT A VELIKOVSKY

Riddles are not revealed all at once.

I wondered why Louis Hissink would shrink from the substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the Expanding Earth theory.

I asked him directly.

Insubstantial reasons were given, I pressed once or twice more, but on receiving another round of vague and insubstantial reasons, I let it go (his comments are valuble) and reasonable people can disagree amicably.

Although, I still wondered, having my suspicions.

Then, today, reading his comments, which amounted to speculation, my curiousity was aroused anew.

Well, it just so happens I read an article in the Picture of the Day section of thunderbolts.info titled: Before the Beginning, December 29, 2008.

This was a very unusual article in that it was promoting a book, the "God Star", by Dwardu Cardona. And while it mentioned myths and quoted several about the "beginning", it never mentioned the particular celestial bodies involved. This was highly unusual for the Picture of the Day because it's invaritably based on observation and measurement represented by the picture at the head of the article.

So, I Googled for the book and found a review.

A Velikovsky book it was.

And I found a piece written by the author titled: Road to Saturn, describing the author's personal journey to Velikovskyland.

It's as much as I wrote in the previous comment: "I am convinced of Electric Universe theory, though wary of some of the more provocative claims like Earth being an "invader" planet brought into the Sun's solar system under the wing of a wondering 'brown dwarf', which itself may be Saturn!"

That's why Electric Universe "priests" reject Expanding Earth theory, because Velikovsky made no allowance for an Expanding Earth. It's all about the myths!

(Several crtical components of Expanding Earth theory seem to directly contradict Velikosky's vision, although I'm hard pressed to name those components.)

I did not come to be convinced of the Electric Universe theory by way of Velikovsky.

In fact, I did not even read Velikovsky's name until after I had seen enough scientific physical evidence presented by observation and measurement to satisfy my reasonable scepticism.

Velikovsky's theories are intriguing, and the myths add a certain heft that should be considered, but the claims are provocative to say the least, and ARE A MAJOR REASON, I'm sure, why many astrophysicists are reluctant to take up Electric Universe theory.

The implications of "Saturn theory" are astounding and almost too much to bear patiently.

Yet, what of the commonality of cross-cultural world myths?

Something to take under advisement.

Meanwhile, the Expanding Earth theory stands on it's own scientific merits, and to the extent it discredits the possibility of Velikovsky's vision, so be it.

It's not clear how the two ideas intersect or intereact. As stated in my previous comment, I rely on Plasma Cosmology for my Expanding Earth theory, expansion "mechanism" hypothesis.

But I know the "high priests" of Electric Universe theory hate Expanding Earth theory like a vampire hates the cross.

This is a weakness of men and not of the theory per se, but it reveals an unpleasant hypocrisy when they ask others to engage in strict empricism, yet in regards to another theory, they don't like, do the same things they criticise in others.

(Oh, human nature is a stubborn thing.)

I follow scientific evidence and the scientific method, not men and their personalities.

I'm not a Volikovsky!