Overwhelming and diverse evidence strongly suggests there is no nuclear fusion taking place in the sun’s core.

Instead, the sun, like its dormant companion Jupiter has a large planetary core surrounded by an abyssal sea of liquid hydrogen, metallic at the point it impinges upon the terra firma core.

Above the liquid hydrogen sea is a layer of hydrogen gas, all of which is encapsulated by the relatively thin, roiling plasmasized photospheric sheath. The predominant reaction taking place in the photosphere is molecular hydrogen being converted to atomic hydrogen and back to molecular again under the influence of immense electrical forces.

The only fusion taking place in the sun is in the photosphere where fresh molecular hydrogen gas breaches through the photosphere we call a sunspot. In the process of the freshly emerging hydrogen being converted from molecular to atomic and back again, it becomes entrained in powerful concentric magnetohydrodynamic flows that can be described as nothing less than a natural solar cyclotron!!

One need only examine the highest resolution images of a sunspot from the 1 meter Swedish Solar Telescope at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands for confirmation that below the clearly defined photosphere is nothing more than a dark gaseous interior! http://www.astro.su.se/groups/solar/solar.html

I have a theory as to what causes sunspots that is inextricably interwoven with the above theory of the sun’s actual composition.

Based on recent research (Tinsley, Yu, Palle, Svensmark, Shaviv, and so on.) a solar magnetic cycle interruption will result in long term higher GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays) levels. The research I have seen shows that the increased ions produced by higher levels of GCR, will increase the amount of clouds over the oceans (atmosphere above the ocean is ion poor as compared to the atmosphere above the continents, as the continental rock is slightly radioactive.) More clouds colder planet, less clouds warmer planet.

Comments:
There were three recently published papers that predicted a solar magnetic cycle change to a Dalton or Maunder like minimum, for cycle 24: one analyzed past solar barycentre motion which correlates with deep solar magnetic cycle minimums, a second based on an analysis of the paleo cosmogenic isotopes (again that correlate with deep solar cycle minimums), and a third based on a physical model.

The following is the 2004 paper that predicts the sun is heading towards a Maunder minimum based on an analysis of the paleo record of solar activity.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ…605L..81B

This is the 2003 paper that predicts a solar cycle minimum based on a physical model.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S

This is the 1987 Solar barycentre motion paper: Prolonged minima and the 179-yr cycle of the solar inertial motion by R.Fairbridge and J. Shirley

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

The solar barycentre motion theory hypothesizes that specific motions of the sun about its barycentre, interrupts the formation of the magnetic ropes at the solar tacholine (Tacholine is the interface to solar radiative zone and convection zone.) With the barycentre hypothesis a Maunder minimum is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle as opposed to a slow down.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/

And of all the horrible details! W/out a semantic standard handy “Mm-2″ vs. “M m-2″ look a heckuva lot the same to my old eyes.

I can quickly surmise what “M km-2″ means, but “Mm-2″ is obviously not a convention I’ve seen before.

Call it a parsing error, but as old Dick Nixon would say, “Expletive Deleted!”

You’re a funny guy!

Of course Mm (mixed case) meant “Million meter” vs. “M Km” for Million Kilometer.

They don’t pay me to type. Although I suppose it’s enough Leif is paying with his sanity indulging me in aurorae talk.

I found my math error from a cut & paste from a website which had the surface as 510 Mm-2. Off by 1000. That’d be 510M Km-2.

That would be off by a million, wouldn’t it? it Mm is millimeter, and Km is kilometer. 1 meter is 1000 milimeters, and 1 kilometer is 1000 meters.

Leif,

You are a good scientist and what you say above is sound advice. The devil is in the detail of how this is implemented. Should this be left to what is left of the free market and individual choice or should the government with the advice of “experts” dictate this?

I found my math error from a cut & paste from a website which had the surface as 510 Mm-2. Off by 1000. That’d be 510M Km-2. I’ve been sick for the past few days, foggy brained. Thanks for your patience! So, yes, that’d knock it down lower than 0.01 w/m2.

I recall the ionosphere nuke tests in the ’60′s that blew out equipment in Hawaii. Quebec ’89… perhaps they were just anecdotal accounts of the people saying it looked like the aurora was in the air, eyewitness accounts that the air glowed near the ground. Might’ve been ionization instead?

I saw ball lightning once as a kid. I was looking down the street and saw a brilliant searing ball zipping down the cross street. After it zipped past the stop sign it let out one helluva boom. It might’ve just been the after flash effect of visual phosphenes, but at the time it seemed the air had a purplish hue.