Re: “Sorry, no. When a model based on known principles matches known observations about heating that applies to the troposphere more than the stratosphere, it more or less confirms mysterious effects in space as not important.”
You seem to be attempting to minimize the fact that new important questions are increasingly being asked with regards to Earth’s interaction with space. Processes which have traditionally been assumed to simply be mostly terrestrial or subterranean in origin – like lightning and earthquakes – are currently under investigation as having cosmic origins. We’ve only recently, for instance, conclusively observed lightning to space (sprites), and we can already see evidence for some sort of connection between the Van Allen radiation belts and lightning. There’s a book up on Amazon now titled Ionospheric Precursors of Earthquakes, and the summary reads:
The book aims to explain the variations of near-Earth plasma observed
over seismically active areas several days/hours before strong seismic
shocks. It demonstrates how seismo-ionospheric coupling is part of
the global electric circuit and shows that the anomalous electric
field appearing in active seismic areas is the main carrier of
information from the earth into the ionosphere.
Rather than pretend we already know where this train is heading, we’d be very, very wise to encourage scientists to explore the Earth-space connections.
I know that Democrats and environmentally-conscious folk desperately want to align on this issue, but there exists a very real threat that over just one or two decades, these groups could find themselves arguing positions which defy new scientific findings, in order to justify a prior, premature commitment to extraordinarily unprecedented expenditures. If our markets are indeed transformed to accommodate the existing models, then dramatic changes to these models in light of new findings will not just upend the old models, but also millions of peoples’ livelihoods. Every single one of those people will feel inclined and even justified in arguing against the new data, and as easy as that, Democrats can become the new “anti-science” party.
From a 2011 conference, reviewed at http://www.thegwpf.org/the-sun-weather-relationship-is-becoming-increasingly-important/ …
Dr Hari Om Vats of the Physical Research Laboratory in India said at
the conference, “The Sun-weather relationship is becoming increasingly
important. It is true that our understanding of the Sun and solar
processes has increased dramatically during recent years, however, it
is realised that the Sun affects the Earth’s environment [in] a much
more complicated manner than we had imagined.”
Note that measurements which might exclude electric joule heating have yet to even be taken. Mr Wizard demonstrated the principle when he cooked a hot dog by plugging it into the wall. To what extent does this form of energy play a role in heating the Earth? We do not yet actually know. Why does it matter? Because, despite the misleading label, the “solar wind” is not a “wind” at all – but rather a flow of charged particles which continues to accelerate far from the source (very much unlike the mechanical idea of wind).
See the paper titled “Possible reasons for underestimating Joule heating in global models: E-field variability, spatial resolution and vertical velocity”, which states …
It is important to understand Joule heating because it can
significantly change the temperature structure, atmosphere composition
and electron density … It is thought that many coupled
ionosphere-thermosphere models underestimate Joule heating because the
spatial and temporal variability of the ionospheric electric field is
not totally captured within global models.
Re: “I know you really like to bring up the coronal inversion and other plasma physics favorites, but we don’t actually have to put all terrestrial science on hold for them, because it doesn’t change our observations of what applies here.”
Let’s get real here: We’re talking about the expenditure of many trillions of dollars. Why in the world would somebody argue against rigor within the context of the most expensive scientific endeavor in the history of mankind?
Space is pretty much plasma in every direction. The charge density changes from the heliosphere to interstellar space, but everywhere we’ve sent probes, they’ve run into charged particles. The reason this matters is because this presents a philosophical challenge to the notion that the objects in space are necessarily electrically disconnected. The models which are currently in fashion (MHD) propose that the plasma basically behaves as a fluid or gas, but that distinguishes those models from our observations of laboratory plasmas and even consumer products (like fluorescent bulbs and neon signs) – which can also and alternatively exhibit dynamic and electromagnetic properties. We don’t have to go very far from the surface of the Earth to observe regions of space where these idealistic MHD models are not applicable. And yet, we see astrophysicists liberally applying them to just about everything they see in space. There has been a scientific debate for more than four decades now about how these plasmas are being modeled.
See “Why Space Physics Need to Go Beyond the MHD Box” and “Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas” by George K Parks.
The implications of these approximations extend far beyond the narrow discipline of plasma physics. Given that 99%+ of what we observe with our telescopes is actually matter in the plasma state, it’s easy to see how entire disciplines of study – like climatology and cosmology – can actually hinge on how plasmas are modeled. What we are all being told to accept – without questions – is that cosmic plasmas behave in ways which fundamentally differ from our observations of laboratory plasmas. The consistent refusal to acknowledge the arguments against that ideology within the astrophysical discipline defies the “scientific attitude” which the public imagines is in play. From “Science Education and Scientific Attitudes” …
The current set of scientific attitudes of objectivity,
open-mindedness, unbiassedness, curiosity, suspended judgement,
critical mindedness, and rationality has evolved from a systematic
identification of scientific norms and values … Is it not possible
that these scientific attitudes have been popularised and then reified
as a set of ideal attitudes but in reality is not often found in
actual scientific practices? The following studies raise serious
doubts about the scientists’ adherence to institutional imperatives
…
The climate models do not escape this debate over the plasma physics models and the Earth-space connection, because plasmas represent a physical mechanism which are already known to routinely pump energy from the magnetosphere into the ionosphere-thermosphere system. From the electric joule paper …
During the January 1997 magnetic cloud event, 47% of the solar wind
energy was deposited in the form of Joule heating, while 22% was in
the form of particle heating.
Be careful what you wish for. If you get your consensus, you may in very short order find that your consensus subsequently defies observations. After all, not everybody at NASA is on board with AGW.