Dude, where are my
sunspots?
Welcome to Solar Maximum! Sorry, it turns
out to not be much of a solar maximum. Not only is it a weak solar maximum, but it's late.
It was supposed to be here back in 2011. But what can we say about
natural events? Just when you think you have them figured out, along
comes reality and we're back to the drawing board.
We have been following the solar cycle, off and
on, since March of 2010 here,
with a follow up in February of 2013 here.
To summarize, we proposed a hypothesis that (1) as sunspot activity
increased global temperatures would increase, and (2) that AGW proponents would
hail the increase in temperatures as proof positive that the Earth is warming
and that it's our fault because CO2 levels would continue to increase.
However, lackluster solar activity ensued, and
the Earth stayed pretty much the same temperature. The one may or may not
have been related to the other, but since no significant warming resulted the
AGW camp has not, as noted back in February, been making any extraordinary
claims outside certain circles. Those circles mainly being people who
want to believe that the Earth is warming and that it is the fault of humans.
But then something happened. A theory
emerged in 2013 that the Earth actually is getting warmer, just not in the
atmosphere as expected. Rather, the increase is in the deep ocean.
The amount of increase is, according to the Discovery.com article cited, "alarming." How alarming?
Rather, the increase is in 1022
joules. Joules are a measure of energy. The relationship of the
joule to other units of measure is straightforward, but probably of little
interest here. For the sake of everyday usage, 4.184 joules is the amount
of energy required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree
Celsius (see Engineeringtoolbox.com).
Of course 1022 is
a very big number. 1021 joules are consumed by the entire
human race every 2 years, and 1022 is an order of magnitude greater
than that. So this must mean that the oceans are on the very brink of boiling
away, right? Actually it requires 1024 joules to raise the
temperature of all of the Earth's water by 1 degree Celsius. Feel free to
have fun with the math that this information opens up, but it would appear that
the scale of the chart may be considered deceptive and the oceans are safe from
boiling away any time soon. Furthermore, the chart goes back only 50
years. This is, as is so often the case, an insignificant amount of time
and without data we cannot say with certainty that the change noted is unusual,
let alone unprecedented.
Also, as with much work in this field, there is
little or no attempt to draw a causal link between human activity and the
observation. It appears to assume that there must be a link since CO2
levels rise, and the amount of energy locked up in the oceans also rise.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) seems to
be the model offered.
Many years ago it was believed that for waves to
travel there must be a medium. Therefore, there must be a medium in which
light waves travel from the sun to the Earth. No one could ever sample
the substance, but the best understanding of how light travelled required there
to be a medium. So it was declared that there was a medium, and it was
called the luminiferous ether. So certain were scientists of its existence that calculations of
physical properties, like density and refractive properties were published.
Experiments were devised and, when the results were diametrically opposed
to the prediction, new experiments were devised.
The existence of the luminiferous ether was
never disproven. But no proof ever emerged, either, and at the same time
wave theories emerged that provided consistent results even in the absence of a
medium. The concept of luminiferous ether has been abandoned, which is
the normal fate of flawed theories.
But AGW "science" has not been
abandoned, at least not yet, despite certain parallels with luminiferous ether
theory and other dead-end paths. Perhaps there is something of value to
be learned through the study, but until they can at least define a proper
experiment and predict a result accurately, is there any reason to believe that
the value of what is to be learned is worth the cost imposed by programs
suggested by AGW proponents?
We have been treated recently to the spectacle
of scientists and eco-tourists stranded in ice on a mission to prove that there
is no ice, chronicled here
and elsewhere. There is certainly no animosity, and as long as they are
paying their own way then there is no harm in the expedition. And, as one
who patrolled beneath the arctic ice on a submarine in an earlier career, I can
understand unusual cravings when isolated from civilization and rise to the
defense of U.K. Guardian reporter Laurence Topham (though not necessarily for
peanut butter and banana milkshakes). Still, it is amusing at some level. Perhaps we should adopt a
unit of measure when dealing with these attempts at relevancy, something like
(WARNING! Link is to a clip from South Park and so may not be suitable for all
audiences) this.
Tom Bruner is not a
scientist.
The preceding link has a
chart and more info.
No comments:
Post a Comment