I was interested about that, because I guess CR could be a very different effect on climate over the poles in comparison to the lower latitudes covered by oceans. What do you think about that? Is it possible that GCR anisotropy originated by IMF has opposite configuration and trends over the north pole?
It shouldn’t matter where we are as far as real changes in GCRs are concerned. The thing is a bit of a mystery. I mentioned it mainly as an illustration of why one should not hang too much on what a single stations shows.

Thank you in advance

“Is that a small spot (two?) at about 4 o’clock near the limb?”

Not anymore. But look just up to around 3 oclock near the edge, looks like someone scratched the surface. Get it quick though before it gets cold.

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

You have to say it fast, although I don’t know how it’d sound with a drawl.

YAHP

Regards,
Bob

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

I sometimes think he should replace the backdrop of the sun with a crystal ball.

He’s still picking a max of 100 sunspots so Lief has not quite convinced him.

Regards,
Bob

In that article was reported an evident cosmic rays decreasing in geographic south pole. What about the north pole? Any monitoring there,

Thule is near the northern magnetic pole: http://www.leif.org/research/thule-cosmic-rays.png

There are even indications that the primary cosmic ray intensity may be decreasing:
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/reprints/2007bieber.pdf
That link also contains a good discussion of all the factors involved in long-term cosmic ray assessment.

In that article was reported an evident cosmic rays decreasing in geographic south pole. What about the north pole? Any monitoring there, I suppose…but it could be a relevant question in relation to possible long term climate effects of cosmic rays in artctic areas.

In other news, I hear Hathaway has come out with a new forecast. Sure hope they can do an update on what’s now showing at SWPC’s graphs. They’re showing an embarrassing disconnect between the old forecast and the current situation.

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

Viewed (timestamped 2009/01/07 00:00)

I watched this on magnetogram since earlier today.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs_small/20090107_0000_mdi_mag.gif

Remember, you heard it here first. Get it while it’s hot.

“work by Drew Shindell at NASA points to these shifts in the jetstream
Shindell used what we today consider to be an obsolete reconstruction of the Total Solar Irradiance and the conclusion is therefore no longer valid.”

Indeed neither TSI or f10.7 are valid proxies for UV reconstructions as they do not capture the required frequencies for photochemical amplification or attenuation.(eg Rozanov)

Much the same for GCR and “averaging” where there are widespread discrepancies between neutron monitors and both balloon and satellite observations and latitude attenuation eg Bazilevskaya et al

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/SSR_Baz_2008.pdf

I agree that there are too many convolutions intervening, but it is interesting that they are hitting the problem from many sides:

There is a previous article by the same authors, http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_etal_EOS_2006.pdf
and they are using not only earthshine but also satellite measurements and ground cloud measurements to estimate albedo.

For fun, I guestimated from the figure the values of albedo and derived a temperature and posted it on a previous thread. There is heating and then there is a steady state.

The Palle plot is also in
http://www.leif.org/research/albedo.png
with the temperatures either atmoz http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/27/4-global-temperature-anomalies-say-the-same-thing/

or junkscience ihttp://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS-m.html

I used the toy model at http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html to turn albedo to temperature and got much greater swings in amplitude ( not surprisingly) than measurements.

Normalizing on the atmoz anomaly plot for of 2005, I get, starting from 1984, (accuracy not so hot, estimated by eye)

-1.3 C 1984
-1.46
-0.80
-0.63
-1.13
-0.47
-1.17
-0.15
-1.13
-0.01
0.44
2.69 1998
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.5
1.15
-0.96 2004
0.35 2005

I am waiting for the next years albedo values :).