EPA head: US must make up for lost time on climate

Yahoo News (AP) ^ | December 9, 2009 | John Heilprin

[UAConservative]

COPENHAGEN – The top U.S. environmental official told a divided U.N. climate conference Wednesday that the Obama administration's moves to "make up for lost time" and cut greenhouse gases would complement congressional action and wasn't intended to bypass recalcitrant lawmakers.

The comments by Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson came on the same day that the tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu — which would be among the first victims of rising seas — was rebuffed by the conference in an attempt to demand strong action against major polluting countries.

Jackson suggested the EPA's decision Monday that greenhouse gases should be regulated would be a dual path of action by the Obama administration and Congress.

"This is not an either/or moment. This is a both/and moment," she told more than 100 people who packed a U.S. meeting room in the conference center.

The EPA determined Monday that scientific evidence clearly shows they are endangering the health of Americans, and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA could regulate those gases without the approval of Congress.

[dila813]

And what I am saying is this article is talking about magnetic flux that if not strong enough will prevent the formation of sun spots and this is totally independent of the solar cycle.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

If there aren’t any sun spots then the solar wind is decreased,

I don’t think you get the article.

I'm not sure how to say this to you any more than I've already said. I think I've made it clear that sunspots are related to the solar wind. They increase and decrease according to these sunspots, but the solar wind doesn't go away, in any case. It may be reduced as a result of the absence of sunspots.

What I'm saying is that the variance in the temperature, globally, really has to do with the cosmic rays and cloud formation.

And again, I believe I "get the article" very well.

I think the part you don't "get" -- however, is summed up in the following from that aricle...

Penn himself wonders about these points. "Our technique is relatively new and the data stretches back in time only 17 years. We could be observing a temporary downturn that will reverse itself."

That's why I say that all these kinds of things in nature go in cycles. Just because we're observing something going one way now, doesn't mean that the cycle doesn't go back the other way.

So, I don't see a problem with the information and data as presented in that article. It's just an interesting piece of information and I'm sure they will do more studies on it over the coming years.

Heck! Since we've talked about this article is so many posts now, I might as well include it here... see the next post...

[Star Traveler]

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

September 3, 2009: The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting some observers to wonder, are sunspots disappearing?

"Personally, I'm betting that sunspots are coming back," says researcher Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. But, he allows, "there is some evidence that they won't."

Penn's colleague Bill Livingston of the NSO has been measuring the magnetic fields of sunspots for the past 17 years, and he has found a remarkable trend. Sunspot magnetism is on the decline:

Above: Sunspot magnetic fields measured by Livingston and Penn
from 1992 - Feb. 2009 using an infrared Zeeman splitting technique. [more]

"Sunspot magnetic fields are dropping by about 50 gauss per year," says Penn. "If we extrapolate this trend into the future, sunspots could completely vanish around the year 2015."

This disappearing act is possible because sunspots are made of magnetism. The "firmament" of a sunspot is not matter but rather a strong magnetic field that appears dark because it blocks the upflow of heat from the sun's interior. If Earth lost its magnetic field, the solid planet would remain intact, but if a sunspot loses its magnetism, it ceases to exist.

"According to our measurements, sunspots seem to form only if the magnetic field is stronger than about 1500 gauss," says Livingston. "If the current trend continues, we'll hit that threshold in the near future, and solar magnetic fields would become too weak to form sunspots."

"This work has caused a sensation in the field of solar physics," comments NASA sunspot expert David Hathaway, who is not directly involved in the research. "It's controversial stuff."

The controversy is not about the data. "We know Livingston and Penn are excellent observers," says Hathaway. "The trend that they have discovered appears to be real." The part colleagues have trouble believing is the extrapolation. Hathaway notes that most of their data were taken after the maximum of Solar Cycle 23 (2000-2002) when sunspot activity naturally began to decline. "The drop in magnetic fields could be a normal aspect of the solar cycle and not a sign that sunspots are permanently vanishing."

Penn himself wonders about these points. "Our technique is relatively new and the data stretches back in time only 17 years. We could be observing a temporary downturn that will reverse itself."

The technique they're using was pioneered by Livingston at the McMath-Pierce solar telescope near Tucson. He looks at a spectral line emitted by iron atoms in the sun's atmosphere. Sunspot magnetic fields cause the line to split in two—an effect called "Zeeman splitting" after Dutch physicist Pieter Zeeman who discovered the phenomenon in the 19th century. The size of the split reveals the intensity of the magnetism.

Above: Zeeman splitting of spectral lines from a strongly-magnetized
sunspot. [more]

Astronomers have been measuring sunspot magnetic fields in this general way for nearly a century, but Livingston added a twist. While most researchers measure the splitting of spectral lines in the visible part of the sun's spectrum, Livingston decided to try an infra-red spectral line. Infrared lines are much more sensitive to the Zeeman effect and provide more accurate answers. Also, he dedicated himself to measuring a large number of sunspots—more than 900 between 1998 and 2005 alone. The combination of accuracy and numbers revealed the downturn.

If sunspots do go away, it wouldn't be the first time. In the 17th century, the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists. The sunspot drought began in 1645 and lasted until 1715; during that time, some of the best astronomers in history (e.g., Cassini) monitored the sun and failed to count more than a few dozen sunspots per year, compared to the usual thousands.

"Whether [the current downturn] is an omen of long-term sunspot decline, analogous to the Maunder Minimum, remains to be seen," Livingston and Penn caution in a recent issue of EOS. "Other indications of solar activity suggest that sunspots must return in earnest within the next year."

Whatever happens, notes Hathaway, "the sun is behaving in an interesting way and I believe we're about to learn something new."

Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

[Rome2000]

A shame that she will most likely escape the Mussolini like fate she so richly deserves.

[dila813]

I think you are getting 98% of this.

The last 2% is that the mag flux is acting as a catalyst for sun spots.

It is like you are starving a fire of it’s oxygen.

We may be seeing an extended absence of sun spots, we can see that they are trying to form, but they can’t.

The mag flux is too weak.

Since we don’t have any long term measurements of mag flux like the sun spot records, there is even a chance that we may be sending the end of sun spots.

Flash forward 20 years, a father talks to his son and says when I was little we still had sun spots. In other words, they may be history.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

The mag flux is too weak.

I think this is a speculative connection... I don't see it as something that enough is known about.

---

We may be seeing an extended absence of sun spots, we can see that they are trying to form, but they can’t.

We've seen, in our recorded history, a longer and more extended absence of sunspots than what we see now.

As to what they are "trying" to do and what they "can and cannot do" -- that's speculative, too.

---

Flash forward 20 years, a father talks to his son and says when I was little we still had sun spots. In other words, they may be history.

Again, this is more speculation. There is way too much guesswork to say one way or another. Furthermore, since we've seen more severe and a much more extended time of no sunspots in our recorded history, I would say that we're far, far from being able to even "speculate" down that pathway (based on our own historical record).

[dila813]

There is a lot of speculation in here, but what isn’t speculation is the requirement for a min mag flux threshold.

As far as when this will end etc.. pure speculation.

But the mag flux will need to increase for sun spots to return.

[Star Traveler]

I guess we’ll see... :-)

[dila813]

That is the exciting part, we just have to see what happens.

Very interesting once you understand what they are talking about.

This could be the perverbable rug pulled out from under not only AGW but GW in general.

We may turn into an ice cube.

My may point with the climate research, they isolate their research to remove other variation from their analysis. They aren’t looking at other factors causing a forcing that is outside the noise in the data.

They get surprised and this is why their research is a hoax, they have the blinders on.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

We may turn into an ice cube.

That may have been a reason (or the reason or one of the reasons) that the earth turned into an ice cube before. But, it came out of that state and we are where we are now.

For all I know, this sort of thing with the sunspot magnetic fields could have been going on for a long time. It could have been part of the reason for the Maunder Minimum and may have been part of the reason for the last ice age.

The thing is, I don't know if it had any part in those events, but we do know that those events happened in the past and we came out of them, as we are here now.

So, as I said, it's way too speculative to attach some kind of significance and/or connection of these sunspot magnetic fields to what is going on now and say that we are going to "drop off a cliff" or something like that.

We just don't know -- but the earth continues "being here" nonetheless, regardless of how much we know or don't know... :-)

[UAConservative]

Re your post 24. Excellent post. I’ve been watching the videos and am already on my 5th video. So far, all of the arguments have been in agreement with the fundamentals of the physical sciences, and I plan on eventually purchasing the video. Thanks again.

[Star Traveler]

Glad to hear that from you... :-)

[dila813]

Yes the earth may be here.

My point is that what we don’t know may indicate that we are just spinning our wheels in God’s Sandbox.

[Star Traveler]

Well, stepping out of the arena of the science involved (which is very limited anyway) and into what God has told us in the Bible, I know that we’re going to be alive and well, on this earth, for at least 1,007 more years, at the very minimum, with a whole lot of people around on this earth.

That’s why I’m not too concerned about our welfare on earth (as far as human beings and civilization is concerned) — although I’m interested in what may be discovered about this phenomenon (the sunspot magnetic fields).

[21twelve]

“..but the earth continues “being here” nonetheless, regardless of how much we know or don’t know... :-)”

Very true - but civilization may not be. A real “ice age” (not some puny Maunder Minimum) would put a real crimp in our style. Crops (and eating) primarily.

The last time we had an “interglatial warm period” it lasted about 15,000 years IIRC (120,000 years ago).

We are now about 13,000 years (IIRC) into “our” warm period. Interesting how civilizations are just about the same age. (We like it warm!)

I imagine that there will be mass migrations to the southern latitudes with no doubt lots of territorial fighting. Perhaps a market for large domes and self-sufficient communities in the middle latitudes.

[Star Traveler]

As I said in Post #54, I know we’re going to be here as human beings and with civilization intact for — at least — another 1,007 years (minimum).

Then I also know that at the end of that period of 1,007 years, some real dramatic changes occur and the world and the universe is made new again, after the Great White Throne Judgement (as stated in Revelation 20). After that, we’ve got no problems from then on...

So, no matter how much science or scientists know or don’t know... we’ve got a long ways to go yet... :-)

[21twelve]

Agreed - it’s in God’s hands.

Not to say that we shouldn’t be prepared for things that we think might happen. But, to think that we can CHANGE the climate is, I think, an outcome of the Humanist “religion” or whatever it is called.

[dila813]

I just love God’s Sense of Humor.

There must be some joy at watching us scramble in irrational fear.

The worship of the Earth though will little off set the joy with a little wrath.

[dila813]

You know, the little wrath could be an ice age.