Science Returns to the Oval Office

[chefmike]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/the-science-of-44_b_159466.html

[kittyKaiti]

It's about time the government learned what "separation of church and state" means. Obama is going to fix this country.

[chefmike]

It needs a lot of fixin' after eight years of shrubya doing his best to destroy all the progress Clinton made.

[JelenaCD]

global warming is junk science , it's world govt trying to pretend science , the reality is 2 things , sun spots are the major factor in global temperature and global cooling is fact last 8 years with quantitative data to support it , so take your agenda driven 'science' , and shove it ! Agreed pollution is a valid issue not global warming ! not the same thing !

[trish]

Really Jalena…sunspots?! The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) has been orbiting the Sun at the Lagrange stability between the Sun and Earth for a dozen years. The observatory has been monitoring both the physical features of the Sun, it’s electromagnetic field, it’s ejected particles and radiation etc. sending home a continuous uninterrupted of stream of data. All publications in reputable refereed journals which aim to analyze the statistical correlations between solar activity and Earth’s climate and weather systems demonstrate over the last dozen years there is no correlation between solar activity and global climate fluctuation and that there has been no statistically significant increase or decrease in long term solar activity.

The result is not surprising. One, there is no proposed mechanism that has withstood professional criticism that would explain how sunspots, for example, could cause a significant perturbation of global climate. Second, just an order of magnitude argument easily dispenses the possibility of such a mechanism. The solar wind, measured at SOHO, has a particle density that varies from about 1 proton/cc to about 5. Sunspot activity is one cause of the variability of this quantity. The variation is only large relative to the incredibly small magnitude of the particle density. If sunspots were responsible for fluctuations in Earth’s climate, its mechanism would have to be through the solar wind. Now think, for example, about what causes the annual migration of Earth’s seasons from one polar hemisphere to the other. The seasons are not caused by Earth’s periodically varying proximity to the Sun, but by the orientation of the Earth within the Sun’s bath of electromagnetic radiation. Small variations in our distance to the Sun have no affect on the migration of the seasons. The small variations in the Sun’s luminosity also have no affect on the change of season. And, variations in the solar wind have no affect on the seasons. The reason is that the influence of these factors is swamped by the more dominate factors that drive the seasons. Similarly, variations in solar activity do not significantly perturb the global climate because the influences of solar activity are swamped by more dominate factors. The main driving force of the global climate engine is the amount of electromagnetic energy that reaches major land masses and oceans. The duration of exposure (longer or shorter days) can affect the amount of energy that reaches a major land mass, for example. This is the cause of the seasonal variations. Also green house gases in the atmosphere, to take another example, can affect the amount of energy that reaches a continent or an ocean. Green house gases are a dominating factor driving climate change because the climate is dominated by just how much energy is reaching Earth’s surface and retained.

[Niccolo]

A good quote:

"If Jesus does come down out of the clouds like a superhero, Christianity will stand revealed as a science." - Sam Harris.

[trish]

Since I like to think about these sort of things I returned to this topic and did a few back of the envelop calculations. Then I decided to bore you all by posting them:

The Sun ejects 2-3 x 10^(-14) Solar masses worth of particles every year. That’s 1.3 to 1.9 billion kilograms per second. This flux is known as the Solar Wind. The wind speed varies from 150 km/s to as high as 800 km/s. Anisotropic fluctuations in the wind have many causes, among them sunspot activity. To put an upper bound on the amount of energy the solar wind delivers to Earth’s atmosphere and a very roomy upper bound for the energy that sunspot activity might deliver, we’ll assume the wind speed is a constant 800 km/s and the flux is a constant 1.9 billion kg/s. Using the well know formula (one half mass time velocity squared) for energy we find the energy flux of the solar wind measured in watts to be about 6 times 10 to the 20 power; 600 quintillion watts of power. The wind is directed radially outward from the Sun and spreads itself out over an ever expanding sphere. When it reaches Earth the sphere has a radius of 93 million miles (149 million kilometers) and the ejected mass is spread out over the area of that sphere; i.e. 70 quadrillion square kilometers. Dividing we find this amounts to 0.0086 watts per square meter.

Let’s summarize so far: The solar wind delivers to Earth a maximum of 0.0086 watts of power. Since sunspots are sometimes responsible for the anisotropic fluctuations in that wind, this maximum places an a very roomy upper bound on the amount of energy sunspots can deliver to the Earth in the form of particulate ejecta.

Now the Sun’s luminosity (electromagnetic radiation) also delivers energy to Earth; indeed in the neighborhood of 1200 watts per square meter. Sunspot activity does not appreciably change the electromagnetic flux of the Sun as measured at Earth. Notice the energy delivered by the solar wind is only 0.0007% the amount delivered by the Sun’s electromagnetic radiation.

Some atmospheric phenomena (such as auroras) are due to high energy particles striking the atmosphere. These phenomena will be sensitive to sunspot activity and other sources of particulate radiation. Other phenomena (such as weather and climate) are not so particular in their sources of energy (pun intended). Any energy that can be absorbed by the atmosphere, or the surface of the Earth and converted into thermal energy affects the climate. This includes both the 1200 Watts per square meter due to the Sun’s luminosity and the 0.0086 watts per square meter due to the solar wind (provided the later energy can make it down far enough to be caught). As you can see the former overwhelms and swamps the latter. That is why sunspot activity is not a likely source of climate change.

[chefmike]

Smartypants!!

I suppose you also know why cooking at high altitudes is a pain in the ass, huh trish?

Not really a serious question, as I'm sure a smartypants like yourself can easily figure out why without googling...

[trish]

Let me guess: dizziness and lightheadedness caused by acrophobia interferes with one’s rational capacity to properly arrange the place settings.

Not to mention the lower boiling point of water is going to make it difficult to bring your boiled potatoes and vegetables to the proper temperature for cooking. My guess is you just have to cook them longer; and keep the lid on ‘cause everything evaporates faster at lower atmospheric pressures. Even if you cook them longer, I’m not convinced they’ll come out tasting the same as when prepared at sea level. I have no idea what effect the lower pressure will have on a cake’s rising or falling. Who can predict the whims of those little yeast cells?

I spent a week in Quito once. It bills itself as the highest city in the Western Hemisphere. I got a headache every time I ran up the stairs to my hotel room. I never tried to cook there, but I did sample the cooking: very tasty. So chefmike, I take it you have some experience with high altitude cooking?

Oh and...if you're really really high up in the atmosphere, sunspot activity might create pretty ionization trails in your beer.

[chefmike]

No experience trish, an old friend of mine who currently hangs his toque in "Rocky Mountain High" country(when I visit we will be, I assure you)brought the subject up once, which naturally piqued my professional curiousity...you, being the smartypants that you are got it right away...

"Because air pressure decreases as the elevation increases, many foods respond differently at high altitudes — and not just baked goods, but beans, stews, fried foods, pasta, etc. There are some standard adjustments you can make, but you also have to experiment a bit to find what adjustments work best for your recipes where you are.With less air pressure weighing them down, leavening agents tend to work too quickly at higher altitudes, so by the time the food is cooked, most of the gasses have escaped, producing a flat tire. For cakes leavened by egg whites, beat only to a soft-peak consistency to keep them from deflating as they bake. Also, decrease the amount of baking powder or soda in your recipes by 15% to 25% (one-eighth to one quarter teaspoon per teaspoon specified in the recipe) at 5,000 feet, and by 25% or more at 7,000. For both cakes and cookies, raise the oven temperature by 20° or so to set the batter before the cells formed by the leavening gas expand too much, causing the cake or cookies to fall, and slightly shorten the cooking time. Flour tends to be drier at high elevation, so increase the amount of liquid in the recipe by 2 to 3 tablespoons for each cup called for at 5,000 feet, and by 3 to 4 tablespoons at 7,000 ft. Often you will want to decrease the amount of sugar in a recipe by 1 to 3 tablespoons for each cup of sugar called for in the recipe. On the non-baking front, because water boils at a lower temperature the higher you go (203° at 5,000 feet, 198° at 7,500 feet), foods cooked in water have to be cooked substantially longer to get them done. Pasta needs a furious boil and longer time. Beans need to be cooked twice as long at 7,000 feet, and above that height, it's nearly impossible to cook them through without the use of a pressure cooker (which raises the boiling point of water). Slow stews and braises may need an hour extra for every 1,000 feet you live above 4,000 feet. "

[hippifried]

Oh... I thought it was this part:

Let me guess: dizziness and lightheadedness caused by acrophobia interferes with one’s rational capacity to properly arrange the place settings.

[trish]

Yeah hippiefried, that was my first guess. And hey, chefmike, I don't really wear pants all that much. I do sometimes wear pleated, green and blue plaid mini-skirts...sometimes with, sometimes without panties. So you can call me a smartypleats, or a smartyplaid, or a smartypanties if you like. 8)

[beandip]

...seems like every planet in our solar system is experiencing climate change recently. Kinda hard to attribute that to cow farts and tail pipe emissions.

[beandip]

It's about time the government learned what "separation of church and state" means. Obama is going to fix this country.


1. you're seriously cute n sexy.

2. The Obamatron ain't gonna fix nuthin'....don't get yer hopes up too high.

:D

[trish]

...seems like every planet in our solar system is experiencing climate change recently.

Not so. Some aren't. Some we just don’t know for sure.

Let’s take one of our closest neighbors as an example, Mars. The atmosphere is thin and consists mostly of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Because the atmosphere is thin it cools and heats rapidly (there’s less thermal inertia). This means there are much steeper temperature gradients that vary as the planet rotates and also vary as Mars proceeds along its orbit. Greater temperature gradients mean more wind. Hence Mars is prone to the formation of global storm systems (winds typically 20 meters per second) which throw dust up into the atmosphere. A significant portion of that dust is flakes of dry ice. The dust decreases the Martian albedo during the storm season which has a tendency to cool the planet. But the heavier dust drops out quickly leaving the dry ice to sublime into gas in the upper atmosphere adding another thin greenhouse blanket of CO2.

Abdusamatov proposed in an unpublished, unrefereed paper that a variation in solar irradiance was the cause of a general trend of climate warming across the solar system. He never established there was such a trend, he did not provide evidence that there was a variation in solar irradiance, nor did he provide a mechanism for such a variation. In all he provided no reason to believe his hypothesis other than the desire not to believe in the human contribution to global climate change here on Earth.

[trish]

If the republicans have their way
The Obamatron ain't gonna fix nuthin'.... The republicans have made it known that they would rather see the Nation and it's economy fail, then give up their precious devotion to a disproven nineteenth century economic ideology. How patriotic of them. How nice of them to wish us well. What fucking assholes they are. But don't get your hopes up, Obama just might succeed in pulling us out of the hole the republicans have dug us into.

[beandip]

If the republicans have their way
The Obamatron ain't gonna fix nuthin'.... The republicans have made it known that they would rather see the Nation and it's economy fail, then give up their precious devotion to a disproven nineteenth century economic ideology. How patriotic of them. How nice of them to wish us well. What fucking assholes they are. But don't get your hopes up, Obama just might succeed in pulling us out of the hole the republicans have dug us into.

It's a facade, both parties are put into power, restricted as they are by the same people /organizations.

[beandip]

"Abdusamatov proposed in an unpublished, unrefereed paper that a variation in solar irradiance was the cause of a general trend of climate warming across the solar system. He never established there was such a trend, he did not provide evidence that there was a variation in solar irradiance, nor did he provide a mechanism for such a variation. In all he provided no reason to believe his hypothesis other than the desire not to believe in the human contribution to global climate change here on Earth."

NASA sez different.

[trish]

NASA sez different.

Gee, I never thought of that strategy; i.e. just lie about what NASA says. (Slapping myself up alongside the head).

It turns out a NASA scientist Dr. Paul Geissler, a U.S. Geological Survey Scientist Dr. Robert Haberle and Dr. Lori Fenton of the Carl Sagan Center published a peer reviewed paper in the premier journal of science, NATURE. I think you will find my description above roughly outlines their findings (explainable by the fact that I was aware of their paper at least a year ago).

http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf

You will also find my account of the climatological swamping of the affects of solar power fluctuations is in agreement with NASA's own website:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/solar_variability_prt.htm

As for the assertion that all worlds in the Solar System are warming, you will find that's simply not true. Moreover, the warming that does occur has causes that are unique to the particular world under consideration.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

[chefmike]

NASA sez different.

Gee, I never thought of that strategy; i.e. just lie about what NASA says. (Slapping myself up alongside the head).

It turns out a NASA scientist Dr. Paul Geissler, a U.S. Geological Survey Scientist Dr. Robert Haberle and Dr. Lori Fenton of the Carl Sagan Center published a peer reviewed paper in the premier journal of science, NATURE. I think you will find my description above roughly outlines their findings (explainable by the fact that I was aware of their paper at least a year ago).

http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/pdf/fenton/nature05718.pdf

You will also find my account of the climatological swamping of the affects of solar power fluctuations is in agreement with NASA's own website:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/solar_variability_prt.htm

As for the assertion that all worlds in the Solar System are warming, you will find that's simply not true. Moreover, the warming that does occur has causes that are unique to the particular world under consideration.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html

She blinded me with science!