Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
View Poll Results: What impact will the sun's deep minima have on the future climate?
Climate getting progressively cooler through next solar cycles 280 43.28%
No impact 141 21.79%
Global warming is here to stay 122 18.86%
Calm before the solar storm of 2012-2013 104 16.07%
Voters: 647. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
22-09-2009, 20:35   #91
rc28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by redsunset View Post
Has cycle 24 suddenly got out of bed? there are now two sunspots and that has not happened in over a year.



Two main active areas, someone on NW says there are now 12 sunspots but I don't know how they've counted that many.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic...page__st__1275
rc28 is offline  
Advertisement
23-09-2009, 01:45   #92
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
The Sunspot Number
Scientists track solar cycles by counting sunspots -- cool planet-sized areas on the Sun where intense magnetic loops poke through the star's visible surface.

Counting sunspots is not as straightforward as it sounds. Suppose you looked at the Sun through a pair of (properly filtered) low power binoculars -- you might be able to see two or three large spots. An observer peering through a high-powered telescope might see 10 or 20. A powerful space-based observatory could see even more -- say, 50 to 100. Which is the correct sunspot number?

There are two official sunspot numbers in common use. The first, the daily "Boulder Sunspot Number," is computed by the NOAA Space Environment Center using a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848:
R=k (10g+s),
where R is the sunspot number; g is the number of sunspot groups on the solar disk; s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups; and k is a variable scaling factor (usually <1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.). Scientists combine data from lots of observatories -- each with its own k factor -- to arrive at a daily value.

Above: International sunspot numbers from 1745 to the present. [more]

The Boulder number (reported daily on SpaceWeather.com) is usually about 25% higher than the second official index, the "International Sunspot Number," published daily by the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium. Both the Boulder and the International numbers are calculated from the same basic formula, but they incorporate data from different observatories.

As a rule of thumb, if you divide either of the official sunspot numbers by 15, you'll get the approximate number of individual sunspots visible on the solar disk if you look at the Sun by projecting its image on a paper plate with a small telescope.
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
23-09-2009, 02:04   #93
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
Prepared jointly by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
Space Weather Prediction Center and the U.S. Air Force.
Updated 2009 Sep 22 2201 UTC


Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical ActivitySDF Number 265 Issued at 2200Z on 22 Sep 2009IA.

Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 21/2100Zto 22/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. There were two x-rayevents during the past 24 hours, a B3 at 1057Z and a B4 at 2041Z.Both of these events originated from Region 1026 (S29E57) which hasrotated into view as a small, C-type sunspot group with a simplebeta magnetic configuration.

Region 1027 (N24E31) emerged on thedisk today and appears to be a small D-type region in a simple betamagnetic configuration.IB. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be verylow for the next three days (23-25 September). There is a slightchance for an isolated C-class event.

IIA. Geophysical Activity Summary 21/2100Z to 22/2100Z:The geomagnetic field was quiet during the past 24 hours.

IIB. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field isexpected to be quiet for the next three days (23-25 September).
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
28-09-2009, 16:49   #94
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

28 Sept. 09 Sunspot 1026 is fading away and may be gone by the end of the day. Photo credit: SOHO/MDI


Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2009 total: 212 days (79%)
Since 2004: 723 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
02-10-2009, 12:54   #95
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
my friend joe b talks very sensibly about this


http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-...RDI&title=Some Extra Post
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
02-10-2009, 12:59   #96
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
oh and the sun is back to being blank again.

02 Oct. 09 The sun is blank--no sunspots
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
02-10-2009, 16:13   #97
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and the cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today.


Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."

read all about cosmic rays and their possible effect on creating more cloud in previous post number 43
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...5544236&page=3

Last edited by Redsunset; 02-10-2009 at 16:16.
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
08-10-2009, 02:07   #98
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
This cosmic ray debate makes alot of interesting sense,


Beryllium-10 is an isotope that is a proxy for the sun’s activity. Be10 is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic ray collisions with atoms of oxygen and nitrogen. Beryllium 10 concentrations are linked to cosmic ray intensity which can be a proxy for solar strength.

One way to capture earth’s record of that proxy data is to drill deep ice cores. Greenland, due to having a large and relatively stable deep ice sheet is often the target for drilling ice cores.

Isotopic analysis of the ice in the core can be linked to temperature and global sea level variations. Analysis of the air contained in bubbles in the ice can reveal the palaeocomposition of the atmosphere, in particular CO2 variations. Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers.



Plotted up and annotated, the Dye 3 B10 data shows the strong relationship between solar activity and climate. Instead of wading through hundreds of papers for evidence of the Sun’s influence on terrestrial climate, all you have to do is look at this graph.



All the major climate minima are evident in the Be10 record, and the cold period at the end of the 19th century. This graph alone demonstrates that the warming of the 20th century was solar-driven.

The end of the Little Ice Age corresponded with a dramatic decrease in the rate of production of Be10, due to fewer galactic cosmic rays getting into the inner planets of the solar system. Fewer galactic cosmic rays got into the inner planets because the solar wind got stronger. The solar wind got stronger because the Sun’s magnetic field got stronger, as measured by the aa Index from 1868.
From john-daly.com

Thus the recent fall of aa Index and Ap Index to lows never seen before in living memory is of considerable interest. This reminds me of a line out of Aliens: “Stay frosty people!” Well, we won’t have any choice – it will get frosty.

The Ap magentic index to the end of 2008



so to cap in my own words, THE MORE COSMIC RAYS YOU HAVE ,THE MORE B 10 THERE IS,AS HIGHLIGHTED AT THE TIME OF THE 3 SOLAR MINIMUMS ON CHART,NOW THATS INTERESTING.

Last edited by Redsunset; 08-10-2009 at 02:15.
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
08-10-2009, 02:29   #99
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 6 days
2009 total: 218 days (78%)
Since 2004: 729 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days

blank sun.


i was worried that solar cycle 24 was waking up but she only rolled over in the bed.thats it back to sleep oh great one
Redsunset is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
13-10-2009, 11:32   #100
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674


Solar update: 223 sunspot free days in 2009



The sun is back to its “quiet” ways after a short burst of activity in late September. The most intense solar flux (10.7cm) reading of the past 18 months was logged during the last week of September, but this “spike” lasted only a few days, and it just as quickly returned to the low levels of the past several years.

As of October 12, there have been 223 sunspot-free days in 2009, ranking it 6th since 1900 in “blank” days. In 2008, there were 266 sunspot-free days.

If 56% or more of the remaining days in 2009 are sunspot free, then 2009 will replace 2008 as the second highest blank year since 1900.
What does all of this mean? It means that the deepest solar minimum in modern times (since 1900) continues, with no clear trend of consistent increased activity over the past six months. Rather, there have been several brief increases in sunspot activity followed by very long quiet periods in between.

This again suggests that the sun has yet to conclusively begin a climb out of this unusually long solar slow-down.
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
14-10-2009, 18:38   #101
silverharp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,236
Been reading the thread, good one btw , David Archibald has a lecture on youtube , 4 parts , 1st attached

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbAe_g41Zl4
silverharp is offline  
15-10-2009, 01:43   #102
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
A must see lecture for all those interested on what i've been posting about sunspots and cosmic ray connection, especially in part 2 but watch it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SN1-vwBVs part 1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIkQL6K8uY4&NR=1 part 2


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3MIRroP5cA part 3
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
15-10-2009, 22:11   #103
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 47
Hello redsunset.
Although I'm inclined to agree with you, I think I prefare if you were wrong. I was looking forward to a bit of global warming.
Those videos are interesting, havent seen them before.
But even Al gore's look convincing at first, so is there a way of clarifying the credibility of the speaker? ie. do you know of other links to the research?
hiwayman is offline  
16-10-2009, 00:33   #104
Redsunset
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,674
Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development , Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"


Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.


Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."


Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."


But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl»n concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.


Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."


Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl»


Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."


Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific ocean the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."


Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

and here is basically that youtube lecture i posted in writing of how the sample cores can show Specifically a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains.

It shows one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic.






Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.


Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.


My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.


Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.


My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.


Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.


Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.


In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.


Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.


However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.


Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.


The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.


In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.


Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world.




Finally this thread is a, make your own mind up to what is actually going on.

in my opinion there's alot of scaremongering going on as i said in a previous post ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
Redsunset is offline  
Thanks from:
16-10-2009, 20:22   #105
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 47
Last winter was very snowy for north America, But already the US is well ahead of 2008 in snow cover.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...dy/#more-11666
hiwayman is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet