http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/1024/latest.html

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html

Please comeback to visit my blog too : http://longdistancephone.blogspot.com/

I’m sorry , If you think this is spam. but may i thank you again.

Bye

YOU guys are saying that a gigantic fusion reactor several thousand times the size of our planet, which is continually emitting vast quantities of energy in all directions and occasionally spits a little extra here and there, and is already known to be the difference between almost absolute zero and the relative comfort we have now, could possibly be responsible for any slight warming or cooling we observe?

That sounds, quite frankly, absurd. In fact, I can hold out my hand and completely block the sun, therefore it can’t be very important to us here on earth. I mean really, it’s 93 million miles away, therefore any effect has to be minor.

Okay – done with my sarcasm…

It’s too bad so many people in this world are confusing Science with this AGW crap. Science is fascinating: it’s the reason I do what I do in life, and discoveries in Science benefit everyone directly. If the general public was aware that the sun could hiccup and take out our global communications and power, they might JUST start to accept that it could also be responsible for our long term climate… and for that matter, our short term climate.

Pioneers such as Carrington should have inspired generations of people fascinated with his discoveries, and genuinely attempting to understand what happened that day, and how to avoid being affected when it happens again. Instead we have kids in school learning about Polar Bears dying from daddy’s SUV. It’s so incredibly pathetic to watch.

A study has been made of the worst case scenario if the Earth received a direct hit by a super solar flare as per the NASA article. Makes sober reading.
One of many studies commissioned by NASA.

http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/SSTA.pdf

As for the more proximate issues, I tend to look more towards the sea. Ocean and ocean/atmospheric cycles seem to drive the climate in terms of multidecadal trends.

I’ve suspected for some time that the sun has a great deal of impact on our climate and and the title of this post reminded me that most people really have no concept how large the sun actually is. We see it as a rather small globe in the sky, but how big is it really? On one hand we have an object that encompasses roughly 98% of the total mass in our solar system, on the other we have a compound that roughly composes 0.03 to 0.06 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere.

The sun is the proverbial 800 lb gorilla that nobody seems to want to talk about! Thanks for bringing it the attention it deserves.

FWIW, you guys (plus Ponder the Maunder) have converted me from someone who wanted Al Gore to run for President to someone who is looking forward to wearing wool socks in Texas. ;) Thanks!

REPLY: Here is the link to the NASA article and Science Portal:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm

Glad to be of help – Anthony

Derham was an active observer of sunspots from 1703 to 1715. He recorded sunspot observations on 1613 days. The sunspot peak in 1705 was very weak and there was never a case during that sunspot cycle where more than one sunspot group was on the sun on any day.

And, NO, I wasn’t on anything.( for those thinking of Jimmy Hendrix’s song “Purple Haze”) LOL

http://www.jhuapl.edu/newscenter/pressreleases/2008/080501.asp

And I had heard it was tree branches in Ohio — not a squirrel.

John M Reynolds

Fortunately, beer is not affected by CME’s or EMI. The cellar is cool enough to keep it fresh even if the fridge goes out.

http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2006/december/indices.html

is that Global Temps spiked immediately thereafter in late Dec 06 and Jan 07.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/rss-msu-monthly-anom-zoom_042008.png

Interestingly also 1998, otherwise known as the “hottest year on record” to everyboy except James Hansen, was a very active solar flare year.w

http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/batse/batse_flares_1998.html

So, even if SC24 turns out to be a weak or moderate cycle, this kind of superflares can still occur! All you need is a complex and preferably compact sunspotgroup about halfway the solar disc. This kind of groups can occur also well past solar cycle maximum, as e.g. the Halloween-groups (2003) and NOAA 0930 (December 2006) have shown.

My website (http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html) contains overviews and details on the white light flares and also on the most energetic flares since satellite measurements (1976).

My guess would be that flares of that size are probably more frequent but we have one that is pointed directly at Earth only a few times every 1000 years. Considering that the location of such a flare is random and Earth is a moving target that changes location around the Sun, it seems reasonable that direct hits would be less frequent than the actual number of flares the Sun produces. Ice records would record only the direct hits.

But we learn from these events. Following 1998, Hydro Quebec rethought their network, and, for example, shielded it from our neighbors in the US and Ontario. This was meant to protect them from whatever happened on our side, but it turned out that when the Northeastern US had its major outage a few years ago (was it not a squirrel that was responsible?), we were ourselves protected!