Well, our January snow extent has updated so I’ll post this extreme climate indicator!!!
As we can see, we have a gentle slope of increasing snow cover in January. I would point out that it was slightly decreasing up until about 1998. Still, this Jan was below the trend, putting it about 2% away from the norm
As we can see, global warming is still up to it’s devilish ways by going through great pains to hide itself!!!
For the lunatics, this is area. So there are many implications one take from this information. The January snow line hasn’t moved. I’d like someone’s altered temp data set explain this.
suyts space 
We have had a lot of snow storms, but not a lot of snow. Which is perfect for us! We get to see the nice white stuff, and not shovel a lot!
To date, not a single member of the consensus science community has challenged the data in Figures 1-3 (pages 17-29 of Chapter 2 of my autobiography) or the conclusion that the Sun’s core is a pulsar remnant from the supernova birth of the solar system.
Click to access Chapter_2.pdf
Is the United States National Academy of Sciences like “a generation of vipers”, a private, self-perpetuating organization that reviews the budgets of federal research agencies for Congress, with little or no limit on conflict of interest?
+10
>>
. . . or the conclusion that the Sun’s core is a pulsar remnant from the supernova birth of the solar system.
<<
You mean a pulsar such as a neutron star? How does fusional matter accrete onto a compact object without fusing, i.e., until sufficient mass accretes to make a G-class star?
Jim
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Thanks, Jim, for your question.
The short answer is that the Sun and other ordinary stars generate and discard hydrogen, but this neutron-decay product may be gravitationally retained in the photosphere before being discarded in the solar wind or in violent solar flares and eruptions.
Please read pp. 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s autobiography to see for yourself that most astronomers and astrophysicists believed the Sun’s interior was:
1. Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945
2. Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946
An abrupt U-turn that was made with no discussion or debate! The real basis of consensus science.
If your time permits, please see the strange coincidence that started my journey in 1960 and please encourage
consensus to address experimental data that has been ignored.
Click to access Chapter_1.pdf
and please encourage consensus scientists to address experimental data that has been ignored.
You didn’t really answer my question. I don’t think much of Fred Hoyle–but he did name the Big Bang. The right amount of neutrinos are leaving the Sun, so proton-proton fusion is probably likely. You can’t create iron cores unless the mass is several times our Sun’s mass. The current ideas make sense, except for the idea of Dark Matter.
AGW is nonsense, but stellar physics–no so much.
I noticed they are having trouble with black holes not doing what they think black holes should be doing. Not everything is hunky-dory in astrophysics.
Jim
Perhaps it would help if you read and understood that neutron repulsion [1] is the primary source of energy in the cores of
1. Heavy atoms. like Uranium
2. Some planets, like Jupiter
3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
Neutron repulsion [1] is also the driving force that causes the universe to expand as compressed nuclear matter becomes interstellar atomic matter (mostly H) with the volume of the particle expanding by a factor of 10^39.
The 1945 decision to hide the source of energy that caused heavy atoms to fission has destroyed the integrity and thus the reliability of astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, planetary, space, solar science, etc.
[1] Oliver K. Manuel, ”Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal 19, 123-150 (2012): http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf
Oliver,
Your paper looks well thought-out and organized. I really should read it more thoroughly, but I’m one of those consensus nuts who believes that stars are mainly hydrogen fusion furnaces (at least until they leave the main-sequence). I’m not a nuclear physicist or engineer, so I don’t have the tools to evaluate your paper properly. If I do read it, it will be from a viewpoint of one of those previously indoctrinated types you don’t seem to like.
Thanks for the link (I believe you’ve linked your paper before).
Jim
Thanks, Jim, for your comments.
If you want to know why opinions of astronomers and astrophysicists abruptly changed in 1946 and were unanimously adopted without discussion or debate, read pages 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s autobiography [1]. There Hoyle describes a meeting with Sir Arthur Eddington in 1940:
1. “We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, two parts iron to one
part of hydrogen, more or less. The spectrum of sunlight, chock-a-block with
lines of iron, had made this belief seem natural to astronomers for more than
fifty years.” . . . [Reference 1, p. 153],
2. “The high-iron solution continued to reign supreme in the interim (at any rate,
in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World
War,” . . .
3. “when I was able to show, to my surprise, that the high-hydrogen, low iron
solution was to be preferred for the interiors as well as for the atmospheres.” [pp. 153-154]
4. “My paper on the matter confounded a doctrine of (Raymond) Lyttleton, who
used to say there are three stages in the acceptance by the world of a new idea.
_ a. The idea is nonsense.
_ b. Somebody thought of it before you did.
_ c. We believed it all the time.
This matter of the high-hydrogen solution was the only occasion, in my experience, when the first and second of these stages were missing.” [p. 154].
Thus prevailing opinions on the internal composition of the Sun and its source of energy changed abruptly, without discussion or debate, in 1946 when Fred Hoyle adopted the nebular model for the formation of the Sun from an interstellar cloud of hydrogen.
[1] Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows (University Science Books, 441 pages, published on April 1, 1994):
http://www.amazon.com/Home-Where-Wind-Blows-Cosmologists/dp/093570227X
Oliver,
I looked up proton-proton reactions and here’s a wiki article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction). So ignoring that it’s a wiki article, it says Eddington proposed his theory in 1920 and Bethe in 1939. Things didn’t really “magically” change in 1946. There’s previous work promoted before then. Also, I believe Hoyle was a proponent of “panspermia.” I’m not fond of that theory either.
Jim
Jim,
Fred Hoyle said that he, Sir Eddington and the astronomers and astrophysicists they knew believed the interior oftheSun was mostly iron until the end of the Second World War.
Please take the time to read pages 153-154 of Fred Hoyle’s autobiography.
Iron is a dead nucleus WRT fusion or fission. It’s the most stable of nuclei. If the Sun’s center is full of iron, it would collapse. I don’t think you can get nuclear energy from iron.
Jim
Jim, the Sun’s iron rich mantle surrounds the Sun’s pulsar core.
I forgot about the pulsar core. Do all main sequence stars have pulsars in their cores or is it only the Sun? There are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy and at least half are main sequence. That’s a lot of pulsars. How do pulsars form–supernovae? That’s a lot of supernovae which we have little evidence for. I don’t think your pulsar core idea flies.
Jim
“I don’t think your pulsar core idea flies.”
You have not addressed a single one of the precise experimental measurements shown in Figures 1-3 on pages 19-27 of my autobiography.
Oliver,
You have so many links, that I can’t see the forest for the trees. Could you give me a link to your autobiography.
Jim
Jim, here are
1. The Start in 1960:
Click to access Chapter_1.pdf
2. The Conclusion in 2014:
Click to access Chapter_2.pdf
Oliver,
I’m not a nuclear specialist, but I’m having trouble with getting power out of iron (iron-56). It’s the most stable nucleus and that means you can’t get any power from it. The iron-56 nucleus is also the most densely packed nucleus. With 26 protons and 30 neutrons, where is the repulsion? I looked at your figures and they don’t mean anything to me. I think you’re wasting your time with me, because I’m going to stay with the consensus on this.
Jim
Jim,
Nobody gets energy out of Fe-56. That is the most stable of all atoms.
Fe-56 exhibits the lowest value of Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction.”
Fe-56 does NOT exhibit the highest value of von Weizsacker’s “average nuclear binding energy per nucleon,” because that concept is flawed.
Where is the neutron repulsion showing itself? I don’t see it.
Jim
“Where is the neutron repulsion showing itself?”
In atomic rest mass data.
>>
In atomic rest mass data.
<<
Okay. And where is that?
Again, I’m not a nuclear specialist. I am aware of something similar to electron orbitals going on in the nucleus. The strong force operates in this realm (along with the weak force and, of course, the electromagnetic force). The strong force is so strong that it can negate the EMF–at least across short distances. It’s the positive charge of the protons that try to blow the nucleus apart. Neutrons actually help to bind the nucleus together. That is my understanding.
Jim
Jim, Neutrons do repel each other. That’s why isotopes with too many neutrons are radioactive. The more out of whack the proton/neutron ratio is the faster the isotope decays. This also speaks against the existence of a stable, i.e. non-decaying neutron star or neutronium. The idea behind neutronium is that gravity becomes strong enough to compress atoms into neutronium, but at that moment the strong force should overwhelm gravity again – in my opinion – and work against gravity.
This could indeed lead to an instable oscillation between gravity and the strong force and the production of “waste hydrogen” and other elements, as Oliver propose.
Just look how Hawking just declared the event horizon to be less trivial than thought; I could imagine that we could see similar declarations about the core of stars.
Look at the “oldest star in the known universe” that Australians just claim to have found 6,000 lightyears aways because it contains NO IRON; rather implausible that we have something like that sitting in the vicinity, isn’t it? Shouldn’t this rather be a very young star that has not yet had enough time to produce iron?
As usual standard cosmology is baffled, surprised by what they find. …
DirkH says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:01 am
“Jim, Neutrons do repel each other.”
…turns out that you find lots of different arguments regarding this; involving the Pauli exclusion principle, the idea that protons and neutrons switch identities 10 ^23 times a second in a healthy nucleus etc.
( e.g. http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78/why-do-neutrons-repel-each-other )
Well, that’s all squabbling about the standard model; I’d just say, we don’t get pure neutron nuclei and it has *some* reason; de facto they’re unstable and neutronium must also be highly unstable.
>>
DirkH says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:01 am
…turns out that you find lots of different arguments regarding this;
<<
>>
de facto they’re unstable and neutronium must also be highly unstable.
<<
I was going to answer you along the lines of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but you already answered for me. Neutrons and Protons are fermions. They have non-integer spins (which makes them fermions), must follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Bosons (like the photon) have integer spins and follow the Bose-Einstein statistics. Bosons don’t follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and you can have multiple bosons all at the exact same energy (like photons from a laser).
Electrons have non-integer spins, are fermions, and must follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle. That’s why no two electrons in an atom can have the exact same energy. However, in extremely cold conditions, electrons will form Cooper pairs. The pair of electrons as a unit have an integer spin and the electron unit follows Bose-Einstein statistics. You can have multiple Cooper pairs at the same energy. Cooper pairs are the explanation for superconductivity.
Neutrons probably form something similar to Cooper pairs. In that case, neutrons become bosons and are stable when forced to crowd together in large gravitational fields–such as neutron stars.
Jim
Jim,
Why all this verbiage without addressing the precise atomic mass experimental data from Brookhaven National Laboratory shown in Figure 1 of my autobiography?
“Neutrons probably form something similar to Cooper pairs. In that case, neutrons become bosons and are stable when forced to crowd together in large gravitational fields–such as neutron stars.”
First, I have difficulty imagining a neutron star to be cold right after formation. So it will be born instable. From there, will it ever reach stability? Why should it? Matter and energy can be ejected into space. This redistributes the “spacetimecurvature”, causing more instability. Add strong magnetic fields to the mix. Best assumption is to think of it as one big chaotic system that might lose as well as gain mass over time.
>>
DirkH says:
February 12, 2014 at 2:17 pm
First, I have difficulty imagining a neutron star to be cold right after formation.
<<
Of course you do. I didn’t say neutron stars were cold. I said Cooper pairs formed at cold temperatures. I said neutrons form something similar to Cooper pairs for electrons. Gravity prevents neutrons from doing their usual thing, so they compensate.
Helium-4 forms a super-fluid at cold temperatures. Helium-3 isn’t symmetrical and forms pairs before it too becomes a super-fluid at cold temperature. The cold temperatures prevent electrons and helium from operating at higher energy levels. The gravity in neutron stars prevents neutrons from existing at higher energy levels. Neutrons are also unstable on their own–their half-life is around 10 to 13 minutes.
Jim
>>
omanuel says:
February 12, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Why all this verbiage
<<
I was responding to Dirk. I have no idea how to address your stuff. Your figure 1 doesn’t mean anything to me.
Jim
” The gravity in neutron stars prevents neutrons from existing at higher energy levels. ”
Yeah yeah; the gravity only cosmos; “Just add gravity”. Your gravity isn’t even the same across the ball of neutronium. Even if the standard model is correct, I’d like to see a simulation of the ball of neutronium. Well, probably the same as with GCM’s would happen, they’d make the model say what they need it to say so scratch that.
Now you’re talking. With GCMs we can do anything.
Jim
Secret efforts to hide information on the abundant source of energy that powers our beautiful, benevolent world from the cores of
Heavy atoms like Uranium
Some planets like Jupiter
Ordinary stars like the Sun
Galaxies like the Milky Way
Were first exposed when Climategate emails revealed manipulation of data to fit a political agenda in November 2009, . . .
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/02/04/a-historical-perspective-on-hysterical-rhetoric/
. . . Yet most critics (except Donna Lafamboise) could not then, and will not now, believe that NASA and other federal research agencies were manipulating observations and data to fit the UN’s agenda when President Eisenhower warned of this threat to our form of government in January 1961:
With deep regrets,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Jim,
1. Lord Francis William Aston carefully measured the exact mass of every known atom in order to discover the “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction,”
Click to access aston-lecture.pdf
2. I plotted the data points in Figure 1 of my autobiography to show neutron repulsion in every atom with two or more neutrons (all except H-1, H-2 and He-3), but
3. You don’t see neutron repulsion in Fe-56?
Do you see Coulomb repulsion between the 26 protons in Fe-56?
>>
DirkH says:
February 12, 2014 at 9:01 am
Look at the “oldest star in the known universe” that Australians just claim to have found 6,000 lightyears aways because it contains NO IRON; rather implausible that we have something like that sitting in the vicinity, isn’t it? Shouldn’t this rather be a very young star that has not yet had enough time to produce iron?
<<
I’m sorry, but I missed this comment of yours.
Is it a population II star or a population III star? It could be a star ejected from a globular cluster as it passed through the plane of the galaxy. Globular clusters contain very old stars (as old as the universe) and orbit the center of the galaxy. Many clusters are found in the halo. What’s the age of the star? What’s its spectral class? You left out lots of details.
Jim
You gotta google that. I think the star’s just sitting there smack bang amongst other stars in the milky way. Nothing special. It only has no iron and from that they deduce it’s the oldest star in the universe. It’s like you use the subway in New York and the guy who sits next to you turns out to be a Homo Erectus born 5 million BC. Reading the NYT.
It’s not quite the same. Humans don’t have lifetimes exceeding the age of the Universe. Some stars do.
I’ll “Google” it. (May I “Bing” it instead?)
Jim
I just read the abstract from the paper. It doesn’t seem too amazing. What’s amazing is it’s a second generation star that formed from a single, low-mass supernova (60 solar masses) that probably formed a black hole and the supernova was a low energy, non-iron producing explosion. Why does an old star ruin your view of star formation?
Our solar system supposedly formed due to a nearby supernova explosion. But, of course, Oliver thinks the iron isotopes are from our Sun. I don’t agree, but there you go.
Jim
For me it’s another sign that all the talk about how stars develop stands on shakier ground than they would like you to know.
The standard model and cosmology in general are not science, they are Metaphysics.
The joke is on those so arrogant as to believe they could manipulate reality.
We live in a pulsar-centered solar system that ancients recognized as the Great Fact, Mother Nature, the Spirit of the Universe, Father of Light, the Great Reality, etc.
After Chapter 2 of my biography was published, Nature published a news report claiming that astronomer knew forty years ago that some stars have pulsar cores.
I will find the link to that 7 Jan 2014 news report if you can’t find it.
Nature recently published two, major revisionist discoveries on stars:
1. Alexandra Witze, “Bizarre star could host a neutron star in its core,” Nature (07 January 2014) http://www.nature.com/news/bizarre-star-could-host-a-neutron-star-in-its-core-1.14478 doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14478
2. Zeeya Merali, “Stephen Hawking: ‘There are no black holes’,” Nature (24 January 2014) http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583 doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14583
Oliver,
1. You claim our Sun has a pulsar core, but our Sun is nothing like the star in the Nature article. Indeed, you’ve never answered my question: Do all main sequence stars have pulsar cores or is it just a few? Where do these pulsar cores come from? If supernovae, what drives the stars that become supernovae? The Sun emits large quantities of neutrinos every second, I don’t think a pulsar core could do that.
2. Hawking believes AGW is valid, so I don’t think he’s correct in that regard. That doesn’t make everything he believes in wrong, but it doesn’t make it right either. Still, I have much respect for him, and I need to study his latest views on black holes.
Jim