Solar Cycle Update – M class flare, little change in metrics, solar dynamo still slumping

From NASA Mid-level Solar Flare Erupts from the Sun May 8, 2014

The bright light on the left side of the sun shows an M5.2-class solar flare in progress on May 8, 2014.

The bright light on the left side of the sun shows an M5.2-class solar flare in progress on May 8, 2014.This image, captured by NASA’s SDO, shows light with a 131 Angstrom wavelength, which highlights the extremely hot material in a solar flare and is typically colorized in teal. Image Credit: NASA/SDO› View full disk image

The sun emitted a mid-level solar flare, peaking at 6:07 a.m. EDT on May 8, 2014, and NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO, captured images of it.

Solar flares are powerful bursts of radiation. Harmful radiation from a flare cannot pass through Earth’s atmosphere to physically affect humans on the ground, however — when intense enough — they can disturb the atmosphere in the layer where GPS and communications signals travel.

To see how this event may impact Earth, please visit NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center at http://spaceweather.gov, the U.S. government’s official source for space weather forecasts, alerts, watches and warnings.

This flare is classified as an M5.2-class flare. M class flares are on the order of a tenth as strong as the most intense flares, the X-class flares.

===============================================================

From NOAA’s SWPC, metrics for April are in.

Sunspots are right about where the predictive line suggests.

Latest Sunspot number prediction

 Ditto for radio flux

Latest F10.7 cm flux number prediction

And, the Ap magnetic index continues to bump along the bottom as it has done since the regime shift in October 2005, indicating a sluggish solar dynamo:

 Latest Planetary A-index number prediction

About these ads
This entry was posted in Solar, solar flare. Bookmark the permalink.

123 Responses to Solar Cycle Update – M class flare, little change in metrics, solar dynamo still slumping

  1. Mike McMillan says:

    Twin peaks again.

  2. Ed Scott says:

    From: http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-thorough-demolition.html
    Science is entirely encompassed and defined by the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses must be confirmed or challenged by predictions about the outcomes of properly designed experiments that others can replicate. However, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis cannot be confirmed or challenged by experiments of any sort, for several reasons:

    Earth is an “open system,” with a multitude of feedback mechanisms that influence atmospheric and oceanic temperatures; thus, producing a replicable experimental setup is inherently impossible.
    There is no way to control or measure the amounts of the various “greenhouse gases” that are emitted per unit time.
    The Sun, which is the principal determinant of temperatures on Earth, is a mildly (4%) variable star.
    Temperature measurement itself is an inexact matter that’s easily disturbed by environmental fluctuations of all sorts.
    Even the most careful measure of temperature is nevertheless a local phenomenon, pertaining only to the immediate region around the measuring device. Thus, the exact placement of those devices, which is inherently a matter of judgment, is far more important to the readings than any other aspect of the matter.
    Which is why the warmistas rely on simulations. But simulations, as I have excellent reason to know, are relevant only to the exact conditions simulated — and those conditions cannot, in the nature of things, match the far more complex dynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.

    So feel free to sneer at anyone who claims that “the science is settled.” Remember what Richard Feynman said about “the infallibility of experts.”

  3. indpndnt says:

    Ed,

    You should be an Austrian Economist. They use a similar (and correct, in my view) argument about the same modeling/prediction problems in the economy. Too many variables and unknowns. It is also impossible to find a control group!

    I would love to see someone make a control group for the climate system. It’s a question I like to ask people who tell me that the earth is warming due to human influence. “Oh yeah? Relative to what control group?”.

  4. brians356 says:

    To paraphrase Gny. Sgt. Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) In “Full Metal Jacket”:

    “I’m gonna prove mankind is heating the planet if it short d__ks every cannibal in The Congo!”

    And it just might.

  5. chuck says:

    Ed Scott says:
    May 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    “Earth is an “open system,”

    From a thermodynamic point of view, the Earth is a closed thermodynamic system. Discounting the out gassing mass loss, and inbound mass gain from meteors, EM is the only way energy comes in or goes out.

  6. TennDon says:

    FTA: “Sunspots are right about where the predictive line suggests.”
    Yea, but how many times has this predictive line been revised downward…?

  7. ossqss says:

    Here is a link to the space weather prediction center and also their new Beta site.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/

    http://origin-www.swpc.noaa.gov/

    This recorded live stream (real choppy production) from NASA yesterday provides an unprecedented look at the x class event from the end of march. Yes, the word is used appropriately this time for we have never viewed a solar event like we did that day in March. Cheers!

  8. chuck says:

    Ed Scott says:
    May 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    ” There is no way to control or measure the amounts of the various “greenhouse gases” that are emitted per unit time.”

    Measuring the amounts of greenhouse gasses is very simple. By measuring the concentration of them in the atmosphere, you know the total amount because the volume of the atmosphere is relatively constant. Simply take the ppmv of CO2 and multiply it by the volume of the entire atmosphere, and you will end up with the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. By taking successive measurements of said concentration at a known time interval, you can see the accumulation of the emission per unit of time.

    Human emissions of GHG can be controlled. For example, NOT running your lawn mower will result in you NOT emitting CO2, CO, NOx and unburned hydrocarbons. Make sure the pilot is burning in your natural gas appliance to prevent explosions and limit the amount of methane released into the air.

  9. R2D2 says:

    When do predictions for the next solar cycle usually arrive?

  10. Justthinkin says:

    Oh noessss!! What are all the twits going to do with their comm link screwed up? Next climate scam coming up. If only for one twitting child.

  11. tenndon says:

    Chuck
    You could refrain from all use of energy from any source that uses combustion of any carbon containing substance. Unless one lives in the tropics, that could spell death during winters like our last one.

    I’ll believe in the threat of global warming when the so-called environmentalists and our Dear Leader destroy their private jets, quit heating/cooling their homes, and only use walking to get to their destinations.

  12. chuck says:

    tenndo…

    Using less and using none are two different approaches. Your proscription of using none is absurd.

  13. Jean Parisot says:

    A question for the sun scientists?

    Is the sun a sphere or an ovoid? Does it vary as the magnetic field changes?

  14. brians356 says:

    chuck,

    It’s all one. If cutting back CO2 emmissions to pre-industrial levels will have negligible effect (as even IPPC states) then one absurdity is much like another, don’t you see?

  15. brians356 says:

    Type – “IPCC”

  16. chuck says:

    brians356

    No, they are different. I don’t think either you, nor I will consciously stop the consumption of glucose metabolically with out bodies. However, you could trade in the F150 for a moped.

  17. Doug Huffman says:

    The Sun is an almost perfect sphere with flattening 9 x 10^-6.
    Information in the public non-academic domain Wikipedia with reference
    Godier, S.; Rozelot, J.-P. (2000). “The solar oblateness and its relationship with the structure of the tachocline and of the Sun’s subsurface”. Astronomy and Astrophysics 355: 365–374. Bibcode:2000A&A…355..365G

    http://aa.springer.de/papers/0355001/2300365.pdf 272 KB 10 pages

  18. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:06 pm
    brians356

    No, they are different. I don’t think either you, nor I will consciously stop the consumption of glucose metabolically with out bodies. However, you could trade in the F150 for a moped.

    Suppose I’m a contractor. It’s tough to carry 20 sheets of 4×8 1/2 inch gypboard on a moped. And who’s going to decide how much “less” I use in order to attain a climate goal I believe is pointless? Because let’s be clear, unless you force people to lower their standard of living, you won’t effect the changes you’re looking for.

  19. chuck says:

    Doug Huffman…
    ..
    Per your paper…”The solar oblateness was computed with a dynamical up-to-date solar model of mass and density, combined with a recent rotational model ”
    ….
    It’s better to use actual measurements than a “model”
    ..
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/02oct_oblatesun/

  20. MarkW says:

    “Sunspots are right about where the predictive line suggests.”

    That predictive line is a smoothed average.
    The sun spots would have to stay at or above where they are now for another 3 months for the the smoothed average to reach the predictive line.

  21. brians356 says:

    D. J. Hawkins,

    Who decides would be the Soviet-style party Apparatchiks necessary to enforce the kind of State chuck feels might be justified. After all, what price Saving The Planet For the Children And Other Living Things. (Well, non-human children, anyway.)

    But don’t let me put words in your mouth, chuck. Is this all so much devil’s advocacy on your part?

  22. MarkW says:

    Another point, the sun is currently at peak, the predictive line passed peak months ago and is now falling.

  23. Doug Huffman says:

    chuck says: May 9, 2014 at 2:19 pm “It’s better to use actual measurements than a “model”

    LOL You hold the yardstick then. At what level is knowledge not a model? As I recall, Monadology, direct perception of reality was proposed by Leibniz in the Eighteenth Century.

  24. chuck says:

    MarkW says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    “Another point, the sun is currently at peak, the predictive line passed peak months ago and is now falling.”
    ..
    Uh….not from a TSI standpoint

    http://www.acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm

  25. chuck says:

    Doug Huffman…
    ..
    The paper you refereed to was published 2000.
    The data / study I presented was eight year later and based on direct observation using satellites.
    You are welcomed to hold the results of the “model”, but I prefer to use more current direct measurement of the sun.

  26. chuck says:

    brians356

    Everybody will “decide” ….the free market price of hydrocarbon fuels will cause each and every user of said fuels to decide how efficiently they will use them in the course of the business they conduct.

  27. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:20 pm
    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2014/05/08/hans_kemp_photographs_motorbike_drivers_in_his_book_bikes_of_burden.html

    Be creative

    Get real. Twenty sheets of 1/2″ 4×8 gypboard weighs 1,216 lbm. And where are you carrying the 5 gallon pails of mud, the screw gun, screw feeder, miscellaneous taping knives, sander with vacuum attachment, shop vac, dry wall stilts, sheet jack and… well, you should get the idea by now.

  28. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    brians356

    Everybody will “decide” ….the free market price of hydrocarbon fuels will cause each and every user of said fuels to decide how efficiently they will use them in the course of the business they conduct.

    Right. And when the taxes dropped on top of the commodity are 10X or so the actual cost of goods sold (COGS), how “free” is the market, really? Especially as there will no doubt be various “exemptions” for government agencies at the federal, state and local level, “critical” users (who just happen to be well-connected to the government apparatchiks) and so on. What could possibly go wrong?

  29. chuck says:

    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Taxes have been around for a long time. They even had taxes in Egypt when they built the pyramids. The taxes on hydrocarbons have been around for a long time. The price of a gallon of fuel today is determined more by the underlying NYMEX price quote than the taxes on said product. Irrespective of taxes, the basic supply / demand mechanism still determines the cost of fuel today. When I pay $3.90 for a gallon of gasoline, the taxes (in my state) are less than $0.90…so the major cost is not taxes, but the fuel itself.

    Oh, and if I use the gasoline for non-road purposes, I can avoid paying the road use taxes.

  30. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:53 pm
    DJ Hawkins

    Especially this one

    https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/48/113982979_0c267a1965.jpg

    I noticed we moved up to “motorcycles” from “mopeds”. Sorry, no goal post moving. I showed you the shortcomings of your flippant solution. Stick with the original paramaters or admit you weren’t nearly as clever as you thought.

  31. vukcevic says:

    Let’s go back to the Solar Flares for few moments.
    On the other thread there is a Great Hunt for the elusive not 11 but the 22 year solar cycle in the climate data. Some of us see it everywhere even engraved in the Mann’s hockey stick. To regret of some cyclo-enthusiasts (myself included) Dr. S is not commenting, however Willis E is doing his best.
    So why would and with what purpose we would look for magnetic cycle, if solar magnetic field by time it reaches the Earth is so week that is measured in nanoTesla, while our own Earths field is measured in units 1000 times stronger, i.e. micro Tesla.
    The common solar wind is ordinary everyday affair and as said above very weak. Occasionally, as it was case few days ago, solar flare or a Coronal mas ejection takes place, this carries much stronger magnetic field, up to 2% of the Earth;s field at poles.
    This incoming magnetic field could be of the north or south magnetic polarity, this is very important point.
    When the Earth is hit with a CME (by the time it reaches Earth it is often referred to as magnetic cloud) with leading edge that is polarised north, it breaches the Earth’s magnetosphere shield, load it with plasma (mainly protons), and so called magnetic reconnection (a sort of short circuit) ensures, result is a geomagnetic storm which often is visible as aurora.
    Most of us know what aurora looks like, but what is this ‘reconnection’ thing?
    A very complicated physics, kind of thing Leonardo once painted, here is a demonstrating video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_x3s8ODaKg
    So what, you might say. When reconnection occurs a strong current is induced in polar regions with energy discharge equivalent to a 6 magnitude earthquake, every few minutes. Some scientists think that such events affect polar stratosphere in number of ways. I would even go further and suggest that it contributes to splitting of the polar vortex, so very much in vogue with meteorologists this winter.
    Denmark scientists have diligently recorded annual aurora occurrences for nearly 100 years 1873-1965 and then stopped, but this record is long enough to show strong 10.5 and 21 year periods, obviously related to the sunspot cycles.
    From above it is not clear why there is there 2×10.5 year period there, when sunspot is 10.5 ?
    NASA observations found that solar coronal mass ejections – CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth more often with a leading edge that is magnetized north, which initiates magnetic reconnection ‘fireworks’.
    All that is fine, the effect appears to matter, but why the magnetic cycles period (usually referred to as 22 year, varies from 20 to 24 years) is so illusive.
    Two magnetic fields, the earth’s (which has a decadal ripple) and the solar combine according to the principle of superposition and since they are of different frequency, they ‘cross-fade’ into sum and difference. I did some ‘numerology’ on this and got this, as got this:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    managed to get it published, but suffice to say it is not recognised as a ‘proper science’.
    NASA-JPL scientist (Dr. J. Dickey) sais: “…. Other possibilities are that some other (earth’s) core process, where magnetic field originates, could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. ”
    Does that mean that even if Willis E convincingly concludes “No solar magnetic cycle is evident in the climate data” , that in reality it isn’t so.
    Yes it does.
    This is possibly the longest comment I posted on any WUWT thread, so I do hope it gets through moderation. Thanks.

  32. chuck says:

    D.J. Hawkins

    Iteration #3

    Be creative

  33. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:00 pm
    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Taxes have been around for a long time. They even had taxes in Egypt when they built the pyramids. The taxes on hydrocarbons have been around for a long time. The price of a gallon of fuel today is determined more by the underlying NYMEX price quote than the taxes on said product. Irrespective of taxes, the basic supply / demand mechanism still determines the cost of fuel today. When I pay $3.90 for a gallon of gasoline, the taxes (in my state) are less than $0.90…so the major cost is not taxes, but the fuel itself.

    Oh, and if I use the gasoline for non-road purposes, I can avoid paying the road use taxes.

    The tax structure TODAY is as you say. For the watermelons to have their way, you have to make hydrocarbon useage artificially expensive. Which means increasing costs way above today’s norms. If I drive 30 miles a day to and from work and get 30mpg I use 5 gallons of gas per week. Say my take home pay is $1,000 per week. At $3.50 per gallon, I’m spending $17.50 per week to earn $1,000. For myself, you’d probably have to push that to somewhere around $100 per week before I start looking to change how or what or how often I drive. YMMV, but that would require a tax structure boosting gas prices to $20.00 per gallon, or about 6x COGS. That’s not a “free” market anymore. The government is now driving the price structure, not producers and consumers. And you still haven’t dealt with the very likely occurance of favoritism in the tax structure.

  34. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:14 pm
    D.J. Hawkins

    Iteration #3

    Be creative

    Be responsive, be specific, or be gone.

  35. Doug Huffman says:

    D.J. Hawkins says: May 9, 2014 at 3:03 pm “I showed you the shortcomings of your flippant solution. Stick with the original paramaters or admit you weren’t nearly as clever as you thought.”

    An argument from authority and without doxastic commitment (skin-in-the-game) is hardly clever, it is only argumentative. On the interwebz you can get anything you want, ‘ceptin’ Alice.

  36. brians356 says:

    “A liberal is someone who is determined to reach into your shower and adjust the water temperature for you.” W.F. Buckley

    She’s also someone who decides what type of transportation you need to use, and how much you should be paying for energy in order to [wait for it!] … Save The Planet.

  37. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From chuck on May 9, 2014 at 1:26 pm:

    Human emissions of GHG can be controlled. For example, NOT running your lawn mower will result in you NOT emitting CO2, CO, NOx and unburned hydrocarbons.

    But it does result in the attention of Code Enforcement, who will be using energy and venting emissions to write you up for noncompliance, and fine you those hundreds of dollars you were saving to buy a more efficient appliance that would save you tens of dollars a year. So not mowing yields an increase and a lack of decrease in emissions.

    Plus they may just have someone mow the grass for you at a penalizing rate, thus the emissions will occur anyway.

    Why not cut your emissions by using an electric mower plugged into your solar panels? You won’t be mowing when it’s raining.

    Make sure the pilot is burning in your natural gas appliance to prevent explosions and limit the amount of methane released into the air.

    What sort of primitive backwater do you live in? Here in the modern world we have automatic pilotless ignition, cited for gas ranges as using 30% less gas than a standing pilot.

    We could also have ranges with manual igniters for individual burners, as we do with backyard grills and small propane heaters, if the aesthetics can clear the marketing department.

    Yes, there are still appliances like water heaters that have pilot lights, the low-end models. But if you care about the planet you’d have a tankless water heater, with automatic pilotless ignition, and stop heating water unnecessarily.

    Of course, all this fussing about reducing emissions is just wallowing about until the real solution comes about, community-sized boxcar nuclear reactors. Automatic, sealed, fueled for twenty years, just drop them on a concrete pad and hook up the wires, until it’s time to swap in the replacement. Could be air cooled, but the heat could be used for local industries like food processing, or for supplying heating and hot water to the surrounding housing development.

    Then the emissions will come WAY down. You’ll be happy.

  38. chuck says:

    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    “The tax structure TODAY is as you say.”

    Yes, and if you’d take a look at consumption patterns TODAY, you’ll note that with the higher price of the base commodity, we are consuming less oil TODAY than we were in 2006. Didn’t even have to change the tax structure to accomplish that !!!

  39. John Whitman says:

    D.J. Hawkins on May 9, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    @chuck on May 9, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Be responsive, be specific, or be gone.

    – – – – – – –

    D.J. Hawkins,

    Yes, and . . .

    “It is better to be wrong than to be vague. In trial and error, the error is the true essential.”

    – Freeman Dyson

    John

  40. chuck says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    “community-sized boxcar nuclear reactors. ”

    Yup….your local terrorist can’t wait for the first one to be installed.

  41. lsvalgaard says:

    vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:04 pm
    Just correcting some errors:
    Coronal mas ejection takes place, this carries much stronger magnetic field, up to 2% of the Earth;s field at poles.
    No,more like 0.1%

    energy discharge equivalent to a 6 magnitude earthquake, every few minutes.
    No, every few hours, so two orders of magnitude less.

    it contributes to splitting of the polar vortex
    No, not at all.

    NASA observations found that solar coronal mass ejections – CMEs in the even-numbered solar cycles tend to hit Earth more often with a leading edge
    No, the 22-yr cycle in geomagnetic activity runs from maximum to maximum.

    suffice to say it is not recognised as a ‘proper science’.
    You are right, it is not.

    (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. ”
    Solar processes cannot affect the core.

    that in reality it isn’t so.
    In few of your errors [which I have pointed out many times, to no effect] , I would go with Willis.

  42. chuck says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    “automatic pilotless ignition,”

    Currently available spare parts for existing equipment…

    http://www.grainger.com/product/1RZY5?gclid=CLLipfz3n74CFY0WMgodIGcAtA&cm_mmc=PPC:GooglePLA-_-HVAC%20and%20Refrigeration-_-HVAC%20Controls-_-1RZY5&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=1RZY5&ef_id=U21c8wAABIjsM4VN:20140509225547:s

    Current “How to Troublesoot” web guides.

    .
    http://homeguides.sfgate.com/furnace-pilot-light-troubleshooting-53855.html



    Keep in mind, “old” equipment is still in service. Contrary to your misconception, not everybody on this planet can afford the latest and greatest technology.

  43. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:31 pm
    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    “The tax structure TODAY is as you say.”

    Yes, and if you’d take a look at consumption patterns TODAY, you’ll note that with the higher price of the base commodity, we are consuming less oil TODAY than we were in 2006. Didn’t even have to change the tax structure to accomplish that !!!

    Which of course had nothing to do with the economy tanking and the persistant underemployment in the U.S. since then. Or the huge increase in natural gas supplies because of fracking and the displacement of oil as a fuel and chemical feed stock. And of course when the feds refuse to allow new oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, that can’t possibly have an effect on supply, can it? Despite which, oil production in the US is up from 5 million barrels per day in 2006 to 7.5 million barrels per day in 2013 and refinery capacity is up slightly from 17.3 to 17.7 mbpd 2006 to 2012. Also, since the price of gasoline at the pump in the US is flat to slightly down from 2010 to date, whatever reduction in oil consumption over THAT period is not the result of price pressure.

  44. M Simon says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    It has a 24 volt connection. And if electric power goes out in your neighborhood so does your hot water.

  45. D.J. Hawkins says:

    @kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    I had considered a tankless water heater for when my current tank dies. Not anymore, at least not until I have a generator to provide temporary power to at least a portion of my house. During Sandy, it was more than a might chilly in NJ. Because my “old” 40 gallon tank natural gas heater sported a gas standing pilot, I had hot water all through the outage. You cannot overestimate how good it feels to take a hot shower under those conditions if you’ve never been through them. A tankless heater needs electricity for the electronic ignition, and even if it has a standing pilot, it still has a flow switch and high temp cutout that won’t work without electricity. As far as I can tell, and by no means have I surveyed the entire market, if these devices don’t positively say it’s OK to fire up the gas, you won’t get hot water.

  46. chuck says:

    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    I was talking about consumption.
    You talk about production.

    When prices go up, people consume less. That is what is evident in the data in the past eight years.

    “whatever reduction in oil consumption over THAT period is not the result of price pressure.”

    Actually, it is due to price pressure. It’s one of the reasons people are purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, and the reason people are driving less. Unlike you, some people have had to adjust their lifestyles due to the effects of the recent financial crisis.

  47. Sparks says:

    vukcevic says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    You say that Willis E convincingly concludes “No solar magnetic cycle is evident in the climate data”, when was this do you have a link?

    I know a moving average in regional minimum temperature has a similar shape as a moving average trend in sunspot numbers with a approximately a four month lag between an influence solar activity and temperature.

    Look at this graph I produced in 2012. It clearly showed the direction winter temperatures were heading, In fact, during the winter of 2012-2013 I was able to suggest to a local farmer about this trend with a similar graph, what happened was the area was heavily hit with over 20ft of snow and farmers lost 10’s of thousands of livestock.

    http://thetempestspark.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/oxford-average-november-sunspot-number-and-march-minimum-temperature-1865-2012.gif

  48. M Simon says:

    the reason people are driving less.

    Supposedly communications (the ‘net) is making a contribution to that.

  49. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Mike McMillan @ May 9, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Twin peaks again.
    Yes, I believe that is a symptom of the North and South magnetic field development being pout of phase.

  50. Mac the Knife says:

    Folks,
    chuck is hijacking the thread. Don’t feed the troll. Instead, chuck the troll.

  51. Ric Werme says:

    In case Leif shows up ….

    What’s up with Livingston & Penn’s sunspot intensity and magnetic field plots? It looks like they’ve leveled off and may be reversing.

    http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

  52. D.J. Hawkins says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm
    D.J. Hawkins says:
    May 9, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    I was talking about consumption.
    You talk about production.

    When prices go up, people consume less. That is what is evident in the data in the past eight years.

    “whatever reduction in oil consumption over THAT period is not the result of price pressure.”

    Actually, it is due to price pressure. It’s one of the reasons people are purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, and the reason people are driving less. Unlike you, some people have had to adjust their lifestyles due to the effects of the recent financial crisis.

    Firstly, I did not claim that the specifics of my example apply to me personally.

    Secondly, anyone buying a vehicle solely on consideration of gas mileage is committing economic suicide. Let’s say I own a 10 year old Saturn. Yes, this example IS from my life. It gets about 20 miles to the gallon. It’s all paid for by now, and I drive 20,000 miles per year. My only real variable costs are gasoline and oil changes based on miles driven per year. My gas costs are about $3,500 per year, based on gas at $3.50/gal, 20,000 mpy, 20 mpg. If my gas costs were to double, now at $7,000 per year, should I simply buy a more efficient vehicle? How efficient? Well, to lower my costs to $3,500, I’d need something with 40mpg rating. REAL 40 mpg, cause that’s the REAL mpg for the Saturn. To make economic sense, that new vehicle, for all costs, can’t run me more than about $292 per month. So if gas went to $7.00/gal, this WOULD make sense. If it goes up another 50 cents? Not so much.

  53. D.J. Hawkins says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    May 9, 2014 at 4:40 pm
    Folks,
    chuck is hijacking the thread. Don’t feed the troll. Instead, chuck the troll.

    You’re right. My bad.

  54. chuck says:

    D.J. Hawkins

    “Let’s say I own a 10 year old Saturn.
    ” and I drive 20,000 miles per year.”

    You’ve neglected to include how much you are spending for maintenance on a vehicle with 200,000 miles.

  55. Konrad says:

    Ed Scott says:
    May 9, 2014 at 12:00 pm
    “However, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis cannot be confirmed or challenged by experiments of any sort..”
    ——————————————-
    Good news Ed, you are completely wrong!

    The global warming hoax can be utterly disproved through simple empirical experiments. I have built and run them. So can you.

    At the foundation of this inane hoax are several empirically testable claims each of which destroys the hypothesis of a net radiative GHE on our ocean planet.

    A. Climastrologist claim that incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    False – Empirical experiment shows that incident LWIR slows the cooling rate of most materials but not at the surface of liquid water where phase change is occurring.

    B. Climastrologists claim that without DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling, the oceans would be at -18C.

    False – Without evaporative cooling our oceans would super heat in the manner of an evaporation constrained solar pond. Temperatures would hit 80C or beyond regardless of DWLWIR.

    C. Climastrologists claim that the oceans act as a “near blackbody”.

    False – Water absorbs UV/SW at depth and has a slow rate of non-radiative return to the surface. Our oceans act as a “selective coating” not a blackbody.

    D. Climastrologists claim that the emissivity of water is ~1.

    False – The cavity effect and environmental reflection mean 0.97 is a good emissivity setting for measuring water temp using IR thermometers, but this figure is far higher than the actual emissivity of water that should be used to determine radiative cooling rate of water.

    Essentially the climastrologists have claimed that excepting pressure, the net effect of our atmosphere over the oceans is warming of the oceans. This is utterly inane.

    On our ocean planet the basics of climate are very simple –

    The sun heats our oceans.
    The atmosphere cools our oceans.
    Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.

  56. Dave Snope says:

    The Sun has been very active for the last few days with huge, beautiful prominences. I missed the big M-class flare this morning but was able to get this hydrogen-alpha shot a few hours later showing prominences all around the limb.

    http://www.pbase.com/dsnope/image/155571532

  57. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From chuck on May 9, 2014 at 3:59 pm:

    “automatic pilotless ignition,”

    Currently available spare parts for existing equipment…

    Congo rats, you can Google too! I saw similar listings. But you listed Grainger. No one buys from Grainger if they can avoid it, they might have virtually everything industrial and commercial but you pay 2 to 3 times as much to support their warehousing. Why not mention a normal appliance part dealer?

    Current “How to Troublesoot” web guides.

    “Guides” is plural. Where are the rest? Also, while I’m comfortable fixing my fuel oil furnaces, the troubleshooting and cleaning mentioned is best left to professionals due to the explosion hazard. That and the gas settling in low spots resulting in basements becoming asphyxiation death traps. Stumble down the steps in the middle of the night wondering why the heating’s off, you might not make it back.

    Keep in mind, “old” equipment is still in service. Contrary to your misconception, not everybody on this planet can afford the latest and greatest technology.

    Automatic ignition is many decades old, used in oil furnaces, and for that it’s 100% continuous ignition. It’s hardly “latest and greatest.”

    Piezoelectric manual ignition would also work for a stove, and do so cheaply, without needing an electricity source. You wouldn’t even need a cluster of igniter buttons, as igniters are already build into control knobs of heating appliances.

    Besides, it’s an essential component of Green Economics that long term savings will exceed short term costs, therefore the switch is logical. Are you allergic to reason?

  58. H.R. says:

    @Dave Snope
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/09/solar-cycle-update-m-class-flare-little-change-in-metrics-solar-dynamo-still-slumping/#comment-1632581

    You posted the following link
    http://www.pbase.com/dsnope/image/155571532

    Excellent! Thank you.

    aaaaaand….. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 9, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    You are correct re Grainger prices, but that’s OK. It’s the immediate availability of everything under the sun but the part YOU need that annoys me. I called earlier this week to get push-to-connect fittings… except the size I needed wouldn’t come in until the next day. Ran out to a local Parker Fittings dealer and had the fittings on an up-and-running machine within an hour. (Your Grainger mileage may vary.)

  59. Steven Mosher says:

    Dont trust feynman on experts.

  60. Sparks says:

    Has anyone asked where the idea of the double peak for this solar-cycle originated and how it was predicted years in advance?

  61. Sparks says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 9, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    “Don’t trust Feynman on experts.”

    Haha!

  62. pkatt says:

    Since DJ and Chuck have hijacked the thread… Guess what happens when you make fuel too expensive. People aren’t stupid, they will revert to wood. Now figure that into your little scheme and know that Im laughing at you for thinking you are saving anything.

  63. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From chuck on May 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm:

    You’ve neglected to include how much you are spending for maintenance on a vehicle with 200,000 miles.

    At 10 yrs and that much mileage, you can drop the collision (aka comprehensive) insurance, as a year of payments can exceed the vehicle’s worth. As a refugee from the junk yard, if a big maintenance item does pop up like needing a new engine, instead you collect a few hundred bucks when you scrap the car and look for the next one.

    Also when you buy cheap used, you could also afford cash and avoid loan interest, saving more.

    You can save thousands this way over driving new over the years, even over just one year, no matter how “green” and “economical” is the proposed shiny replacement.

  64. Sparks says:

    The Suns activity is still very week for this cycle compared to the last hundred years or so, it’s nothing special, although I will point out recent data tampering of the temperature record and the systematic cooling of the past, warming the present and modeling a warmer future. If successive solar cycles are to become weaker and temperatures begin trending down in reality, everyone should note that this idea is based on astronomy and various Ideas and well researched thoughts on astronomical relationships between our planet and its interaction with its surrounding environment within a system of planets interacting with a star.

  65. Jean Parisot says:

    Thanks on the sun shape stuff.

  66. ossqss says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    Quoted >”energy discharge equivalent to a 6 magnitude earthquake, every few minutes.”

    No, every few hours, so two orders of magnitude less.

    ================================================

    Leif, so how much techtonic influence could an X class event have from a direct vector?

  67. Sparks says:

    Jean Parisot says:
    May 9, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    “Thanks on the sun shape stuff.”

    What shape did you think the sun was?

  68. chuck says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    “if a big maintenance item does pop up like needing a new engine, instead you collect a few hundred bucks when you scrap the car and look for the next one.”

    Love the people that scrap a car because it needs a new battery or a set of new tyres.

    Thanks, now I know who owned my previous vehicle.

  69. Tom in Florida says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm
    “At 10 yrs and that much mileage, you can drop the collision (aka comprehensive) ”

    Nope, collision is not the same as comprehensive. I dropped collision on my older car but kept the comprehensive because it covers damage caused by weather, i.e falling limbs during wind events.

  70. pyromancer76 says:

    I am very sad that “chuck” got to hijack this thread. I come here for science, and disputes thereof, very interesting disputes, debates, disagreements, agreements, with data as background, not political opinion. Please, ignore the “chuck” comments, do not give “chuck” your time; let the first responder take care of “the problem” and let it go. Otherwise, WUWT becomes like all other “opinion” websites one does not care to read.

  71. Sparks says:

    ossqss says:
    May 9, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Leif, so how much techtonic influence could an X class event have from a direct vector?

    No. solar flares have no direct or indirect effect on tectonic processes.

  72. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From D.J. Hawkins on May 9, 2014 at 4:16 pm:

    (…) You cannot overestimate how good it feels to take a hot shower under those conditions if you’ve never been through them. (…)

    Had the old well pump at my parent’s house go out just before winter some years back, as circumstances went a new well was drilled. The driller didn’t have the construction equipment for digging the trench in frozen ground, I ended up ferrying water jugs until the spring.

    After moving in there, a few years back I had to put up a new chimney, and the domestic hot water coil is in the furnace. Took me a few weeks. The water pressure tank died, and the old steel fittings wouldn’t budge. Replaced and redone in plastic.

    You were lucky you still had municipal water and didn’t need power for it, and doubly-lucky you still had gas. Hot showers are nice. But a pot of water heated on the backyard grill will also get you clean.

    If you’re not going tankless to have hot water in an emergency, consider how close you were to having the point made moot. And really plan to have water in an emergency and a means of heating it.

  73. Sparks says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    May 9, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Mike McMillan @ May 9, 2014 at 11:38 am

    “Twin peaks again.”
    “Yes, I believe that is a symptom of the North and South magnetic field development being pout of phase.”

    Nothing is out of phase, the process has slowed, prolonging the sun spot cycle and perhaps longer periods of inactivity are the result during solar minimums.

  74. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Tom in Florida on May 9, 2014 at 7:39 pm:

    Nope, collision is not the same as comprehensive.

    Yes, I am wrong, you are right. I’ve just never had anything worth having either for, and IIRC the agents speak of “comprehensive-collision” as a combined product.

    It’s also made me a better driver, with a good incentive to not hit anything!

  75. ren says:

    Vukcevic says:
    When reconnection occurs a strong current is induced in polar regions with energy discharge equivalent to a 6 magnitude earthquake, every few minutes. Some scientists think that such events affect polar stratosphere in number of ways. I would even go further and suggest that it contributes to splitting of the polar vortex, so very much in vogue with meteorologists this winter.
    From my observation, it is exactly the opposite. When the sun is “strong” polar vortex accelerates.

  76. ferd berple says:

    Remember what Richard Feynman said about “the infallibility of experts.”
    ———
    put 10 experts in a room and your will get 20 different opinions on the future.

  77. ferd berple says:

    EM is the only way energy comes in or goes out.
    ============
    this is a naive view of climate. the slightest change in the deep ocean mixing rate is all it takes to change hot-house earth into ice-cube earth and vice versa.

    For all intents and purposes the oceans are a limitless sink and source when viewed in the scale of human lifetimes and surface temperatures. The transport mechanism is not EM, it is convection and conduction.

    The ocean deep is as remote from the surface as it outer space. Perhaps more so. More people have been in space for much longer than have ever visited the ocean deep.

  78. asybot says:

    Sparks says @ 8.39pm:
    No. solar flares have no direct or indirect effect on tectonic processes.
    I thought that CME resulting from flares do change electrical currents in our soils and rocks. Geologists are still not sure if those changes have an effect on tectonic plates and therefore earthquakes. but on a number of web sites there are people that do post changes in electrical currents, (Boulder Co and a place in Northern Norway and also the U of Alaska and the Alaska Volcanic people. (I believe SolarHam does this as well) I could be wrong

  79. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    ……
    Thanks for your comment, not that I expected you to agree, I am out for 99% consensus.

    Sparks says:
    May 9, 2014 at 4:17 pm
    when was this do you have a link?

    I wrote : “even if “.. , which I think, it means that he hasn’t .at least not as yet, ergo no link, and I wouldn’t expect one as you can see here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-June-spec.htm

    ren says:
    May 9, 2014 at 11:23 pm
    From my observation, it is exactly the opposite. When the sun is “strong” polar vortex accelerates.
    Hi ren
    You may misunderstood what is suggested.
    Splitting of the polar vortex it is indeed due to increased vorticity.
    Intensity of an individual CME or a solar flair is not related to a ‘strong’ or ‘weak’ sun; powerful flares also occur during solar minimum, which I presume you would consider to be a ‘weak’ sun.
    After a CME’s field reconnection, volume of gyrating protons enter magnetosphere ending in polar regions, strongly ionising stratosphere. Due to magnetic bifurcation of the MF in the N. Hemisphere, the ionised polar vortex will be under influence of the MF configuration, eventually breaking up into two sections, mirroring image of the MF. Here is the NASA’s animation:
    http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov

  80. Peter Azlac says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 9, 2014 at 5:56 pm

    Dont trust feynman on experts.

    Feynman was correct in his views in that much of what passes for climate science is more akin to social non science:

    However, we do not have to take Feynman’s word – as Ronald Reagan said “trust but verify”
    There are an number of studies that confirm the lack of expertise of experts:

    “In a study on expert opinion, University of Pennsylvania professor Philip Tetlock, whose ground-breaking 2005 book (Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? How Can We Know?) analyzed 27,450 predictions from a variety of experts and found they were no more accurate than random guesses or, as he put it, “a dart-throwing chimpanzee”.

    and, in his book “Future Babble, Why expert predictions are next to worthless and you can do better,” the author Dan Gardner leaves no doubts over his conclusion.

    The basis of sound forecasting based on expert advice has been set out in a long term study by Professor Scott Armstrong, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania is author of the book “Principles of Forecasting” His views about climate change … Armstrong found that the IPCC in forecasting future global warming violated most of the established forecasting rules leading to large errors in their model output – as has been shown in the lack of skill of their GCMs!

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703326204575616983641995488.html
    http://www.theclimatebet.com/
    Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method

    http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/AGW%20analogies66JSA.pdf

    In this study, his group found 26 analogous situations to the current global warming situation where politicians acted on the advice of claimed experts. They found that in 23 of these cases the result was harmful, with three cases showing no benefit or harm.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/research_to_date_forecasting.pdf
    Of particular interest is his testimony to Congress:
    http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Report%20for%20Congressional%20hearing-R14%20%282%29%20armstrong%20update.pdf

    In this respect a pertinent view on advice taken by politicians in relation to the opposing views and uncertainties in climate science is that of William Walldegrave a former UK Minister of Science who sets out both sides in a succinct set of rules:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/3/advice-to-a-science-minister.html

    “The most vital thing is that politicians should understand the provisional nature of scientific conclusions, and should probe the consequences of a scientific U-turn. My hero in this connection is Donald Thompson, who was a Minister in the then Department of Agriculture in 1989. He understood that scientific conclusions are not set in stone, and asked, ‘What if science changes its mind about the transmissible nature of BSE?’

    Like CACW, BSE was claimed by scientists at the time to be potentially catastrophic requiring drastic action, yet later after great economic cost, the alarm proved to be misplaced

    More directly there have been many false alarms linked to the environment, for example: A history of scientific alarms -Dr Kesten Green lists the 20 most unscientific scares.

    http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1964/a-history-of-scientific-alarms
    and these:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

  81. Richard Barraclough says:

    pyromancer76 says:

    May 9, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    I am very sad that “chuck” got to hijack this thread

    Well said!! I thought moderators were supposed to remove that sort of inane drivel from WUWT

  82. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    May 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm
    ………………
    Vukcevic: Coronal mas ejection takes place, this carries much stronger magnetic field, up to 2% of the Earth;s field at poles.

    Svalgaard: No,more like 0.1%
    ………………
    Well, let’s see.
    Strength of the Earth’s magnetic total field at the (“north”) magnetic pole on 30/10/203 was 57959.03nT
    Magnetic storm was recorded at Tromso, where the field was considerably less i.e. 52786.58 nT, with the magnetogram shown here.
    http://flux.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/plotgeodata.cgi?Comps=dhz&tint=1day&block=0&day=30&mnt=10&year=2003&site=tro2a
    Peak of the Vertical field (somewhat lower than for the total field) was 2800 nT
    The corresponding percentages are:
    For the North Pole: (2800 x 100)/ 57959 = 4.83 or 4.8%
    For Tromso itself: (2800 x 100)/ 52786 = 5.30 or 5.3%
    Note that for the total field percentages would be somewhat higher.
    As we can see, a powerful geomagnetic storm could be nearly 5% of the Earths Field at the magnetic pole, way, way, way above 0.1% (50x more) of what you quote.
    Of course, not all geomagnetic storms were as strong as the one above, but again that one was not the strongest either, the reason why I used figure even less than half of the calculated percentage, i.e. at 2%.

  83. ferd berple says:

    chuck says:
    May 9, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    Using less and using none are two different approaches.
    =================
    less than what? Less than you used yesterday? Less than Al Gore? Less than a bushman in Africa? Less than what?

    How do you measure less? If it is less than yesterday, then every day you must use less until you are effectively using none, which you call absurd. the logical conclusion of your recommendation is what you call absurd.

  84. beng says:

    Oh yeah, and an incredibly detailed view of the sun’s disk w/high-latitude magnetic activity:
    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140506.html

  85. Konrad says:

    Climate debate aside, how unbelievably cool is SDO?

    Sex on stilts. You know it ;-)

    Everyone (and every penguin) likes real science….

    http://weknowmemes.com/2014/02/yes-i-would-like-to-science-please/

  86. markopanama says:

    Oh the flares, the flares!

    The flares were never this bad in the past as I remember – at least nobody talked about them so much. Now its worse than we thoiught! What could be causing this unprecidented increase in deadly solar flares??

    Us of course – I’ve looked into it and the science is clear.

    It’s all of those damn solar panels that everyone is putting up. You see, the photons from the sun hitting those solar panels create electricity that creates entwined, telecommunicating magnetic and electrical fields that reach all the way back to the sun and crete direct energy conduits through which the sun attempts to communicate with its progeny.

    Our profiglate use of these instruments of destruction will inevitably lead to a powerful connection being set up and the sun itself coming to visit the earth through a powerful flare that will wipe out all of mankind and establish a permanent current flow between the earth and the sun, making earth the first man-made star.

    But there is time to save ourselves if we act decisively now – we must all vow and pressure our governments to legislate that nothing will be used for human energy production except that which comes from the bowels of the earth itself, just the way the creator intended it.

    I’ve written to Obama’s science advisor, who I am assured is up on all the latest scientific fads, and eagerly await his reply and will report in the space forthwith.

    /sarc on Saturday morning

  87. Jim G says:

    Leif,
    Or anyone who knows:

    Would a solar flare of this class be visible in visible light through my 8″ SCT ( I have proper visible light filtering and have taken many eclipse, both partial and annular, photos and a transit photo with it)? If so, how long would any visible effects be visible? How about stronger flares?

    Thanks,

    Jim G

  88. ren says:

    However, after the super-X20 flare of April 2, 2001 occurred short strong growth neutrons. Only then solar protons have a sufficient energy to overcome the magnetic field to get to the bottom of the stratosphere.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=30&startmonth=03&startyear=2001&starttime=00%3A00&endday=10&endmonth=05&endyear=2001&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  89. ren says:

    Therefore, the lower stratosphere and troposphere ionizes the GCR and photons. Whereby the photons play a greater role on the equator and the poles GCR. Weaker so. solar dynamo produces changes in ozone at the equator (less UV), and GCR more ionizes ozone at the poles.

  90. lsvalgaard says:

    vuk says:
    May 10, 2014 at 2:52 am
    As we can see, a powerful geomagnetic storm could be nearly 5% of the Earths Field at the magnetic pole, way, way, way above 0.1% (50x more) of what you quote.
    You get this wrong because you do not understand how this works. The magnetic field in a very strong CME can be about 50 nT [1/1000 of the Earth's at the surface]. The energy in a CME can be fed into the Earth’s magnetosphere over several hours and suddenly released. The release creates an electric current. The magnetic field of that current depends on the distance to the current and has in theory no upper limit [just make the distance small enough]. At the surface the magnetic effect can indeed be several thousand nT, but that has nothing to do with the CME [as you put it] “carries much stronger magnetic field”.

    In general when you find that what you claim is at variance with what I try to teach you, it simply means that have misunderstood something and have holes in your understanding.

    Jim G says:
    May 10, 2014 at 8:58 am
    Would a solar flare of this class be visible in visible light through my 8″ SCT
    Yes, but you have to catch in during the few minutes the flare takes to play out.

  91. vukcevic says:

    lsvalgaard says:
    May 10, 2014 at 12:48 pm
    I wrote:
    powerful geomagnetic storm could be nearly 5% of the Earths Field at the magnetic pole
    What you say is fine, but it was clear I was not quoting CME’s magnetic field strength, which is something else.
    Even if a very powerful CME only glances the magnetosphere, effect would be minor.
    We have a Consensus.

  92. lsvalgaard says:

    vuk says:
    May 10, 2014 at 1:54 pm
    but it was clear I was not quoting CME’s magnetic field strength,

    What you said was: “Coronal mas ejection takes place, this carries much stronger magnetic field, up to 2% of the Earth;s field at poles” so it was clear that you were talking about that ‘this’ [the coronal mass ejection] carried ‘much stronger magnetic field’. And that you therefore was talking about the magnetic field carried by the CME. But, if you now realize that you were wrong that is, of course, good. To build on that new understanding perhaps you may also realize that the magnetic effect you are quoting pertains to a very localized region in the auroral zone [not at the magnetic pole]. The global effect [the so-called ring current] is an order of magnitude smaller. Your ‘consensus’ idea is nonsense. It is all about you possibly learning something.

  93. Ric Werme says:

    Leif,

    What’s up with Livingston & Penn’s sunspot intensity and magnetic field plots? It looks like they’ve leveled off and may be reversing.

    http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

  94. lsvalgaard says:

    Ric Werme says:
    May 11, 2014 at 10:38 am
    What’s up with Livingston & Penn’s sunspot intensity and magnetic field plots? It looks like they’ve leveled off and may be reversing.
    That they level off is a natural consequence of the evolution [as you keep cutting off the bottom]. There may be a weak solar cycle variation as well. It is too early to say for sure. Need more data.

  95. Carla says:

    What do the solar cycle and the interstellar background have in common?

    Both are inhomogeneous.

    The IBEX ribbon as a signature of the inhomogeneity of the local interstellar medium

    Horst Fichtner1, Klaus Scherer1, Frederic Effenberger1,2, Jochen Zönnchen3, Nathan Schwadron4 and David J. McComas5,6
    03 January 2014

    ”’…Results. It is found that inhomogeneities in the local interstellar medium can explain not only the IBEX ribbon and outer heliospheric Lyman-α observations, but can also account for the interstellar Lyman-α absorption that could only with difficulty be fully attributed to the hydrogen wall in the outer heliosheath if the heliospheric bow shock would indeed be absent….”’
    http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2014/01/aa22064-13/aa22064-13.html

    What else could be in common betwixt the sun and interstellar background? That asymmetry thingy going on. Where as there is a dent in the heliospheric boundary creating the first asymmetry, which we thinks correlates well with the downwind asymmetry in the heliospheric tail and those solar disk asymmetries going on inbetween..

    And to all our teams working on the local interstellar background..
    Might the spectrometry described here be useful…

    Unique Astrophysics in the Lyman Ultraviolet

    ”’Summary: There is unique and groundbreaking science to be done with a new generation of UV
    spectrographs that cover wavelengths in the “Lyman Ultraviolet” (LUV; 912 – 1216 Å)…
    …The unique science available in the LUV includes critical problems in astrophysics
    ranging from the habitability of exoplanets to the reionization of the IGM. Crucially, the local
    Universe (z . 0.1) is entirely closed to many key physical diagnostics without access to the LUV.
    These compelling scientific problems require overcoming these technical barriers so that future UV
    spectrographs can extend coverage to the Lyman limit at 912 A…””
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3272.pdf

  96. Sparks says:

    Carla what on earth are you talking about?

  97. Carla says:

    Sparks says:

    May 11, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Carla what on earth are you talking about?
    ————————————————————–

    What modulates the heliosphere for 1, is the same as what modulates the solar cycle for 2 and if what modulates the heliosphere is not homogeneous for 3. Then something more than the Interstellar wind direction has changed in the last 40 years for 4.
    Didn’t require Milankovich or any Jovian planets.

  98. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 12, 2014 at 5:26 pm
    What modulates the heliosphere for 1, is the same as what modulates the solar cycle
    Is nonsense. The solar cycle is what modulates the heliosphere. And what happens at the outer edge of the solar system has no influence on the Sun or the inner part.

  99. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    May 12, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    Carla says:
    May 12, 2014 at 5:26 pm
    What modulates the heliosphere for 1, is the same as what modulates the solar cycle
    Is nonsense. The solar cycle is what modulates the heliosphere. And what happens at the outer edge of the solar system has no influence on the Sun or the inner part.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Don’t force me to use the extreme event of a fast, cold, dense interstellar cloud pushing the solar termination shock up to 1 AU like in Earths orbit. Then I might have to ask you, what kind of solar cycle would we then have?
    Or, what kind of solar cycle would we have while passing through an interstellar magnetic flux tube? Or, what kind of solar cycle would we have if we were in a warm ionionized but densely populated? As opposed to sparsely? Is it E field dominate or B field dominate.
    Get a grip Dr. S., background not homogenous..solar accretion or filtration however you wish..clumps, clusters of clumpy clouds joining other clusters of clumpy clouds.. some quite small tiny scale atomic structures.

    So, how’s the sunspot work shop going?

  100. Carla says:

    There is some evidence to indicate that there is a a cluster of clouds in the Apex cloud or G cloud group joining the CLIC (cluster of local interstellar clouds), which may indicate a nearby Loop I boundary.

  101. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 12, 2014 at 7:42 pm
    Don’t force me to use the extreme event of a fast, cold, dense interstellar cloud pushing the solar termination shock up to 1 AU like in Earths orbit. Then I might have to ask you, what kind of solar cycle would we then have?
    Regardless of where the termination shock is, the sun and the solar cycle will not be affected in any way. And any interstellar clouds etc take thousands of years to pass so will hardly qualify as ‘events’.

  102. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    May 12, 2014 at 11:08 pm

    …the sun and the solar cycle will not be affected in any way.
    ——————————————————————————–

    You know Dr. S., the first place a person might want to check, in the case of an increase or change in interstellar wind and density pressure, is solar rotation.
    They say, warm low density the sun will orbit faster, as opposed to cool higher density, that whole less resistance and drag thing going on. Must be some points inbetween..fast and slow. The angle(s) at which the resistance and pressures occur probably often create heliospheric hemispheric differences or differential something or another..
    Change the rotation and vary the solar cycle.
    Don’t make me ask you, what the moon is made of, ok?

  103. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    They say, warm low density the sun will orbit faster
    No, the solar wind is supersonic and the Sun therefore cannot know what happens at the outer boundary.

  104. Carla says:

    lsvalgaard says:

    May 13, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    Carla says:
    May 13, 2014 at 3:41 pm
    They say, warm low density the sun will orbit faster
    No, the solar wind is supersonic and the Sun therefore cannot know what happens at the outer boundary.
    ————————————

    Well the heliosphere is a leaky ship Dr. S., and its current shape indicates it is squashed over its polar region, leaving a long trailing tail, coincidently the polar fields are running at 100 year low values. That outside resistance that has no effect is showing..Remember in the olden days when helisphere used to be more uniformly expanded outwards..and how it had maintained that for a century..Then the arrival of the spaceage high in GCR..and more expected next cycle. GCR above 500Mev? don’t care how supersonic the solar wind is, or is not..

  105. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 13, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    Well the heliosphere is a leaky ship Dr. S.,
    None of that matters for the solar cycle.

  106. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 13, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    Well the heliosphere is a leaky ship Dr. S., and its current shape indicates it is squashed over its polar region, leaving a long trailing tail, coincidently the polar fields are running at 100 year low values.
    None of this matters for the solar cycle. The shape and extent of the heliosphere and the puny GCRs don’t matter for the Sun and its activity.

  107. Carla says:

    Let’s just see now..
    In the mid. 1990’s is when the solar polar fields began [their] decline.
    Now in this solar 24 min. the solar polar fields hit the floor..the solar cycle got longer or slowed down.
    If the solar rotation slows or speeds up, the cycle will vary.

    So in the course of the sun’s orbit about the galaxy, there are times when it will increase in orbital as well as rotation speed, due primarily to the temp, density, wind speed and direction and GCR eV levels, of the interstellar medium it is embedded. And interstellar clouds come in all shapes and sizes, irregular.
    In the case of the heliosphere there could be excess’s of pressure in one hemisphere and less in another.

    Maybe we should be more careful in decoupling the the GCR from the pressure. We always seem to want to filter them.

    Saw an article on an alternate theory of the interstellar gas background.
    They suggested that we should be treating it as gas and not rigid clould structures.
    Two waves of expanding gas propagating out wards and one may overtake the other creating a ripple
    and which appears as a boundary in conventional rigid theory. Complimentary article I thought.

  108. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 15, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    So in the course of the sun’s orbit about the galaxy, there are times when it will increase in orbital as well as rotation speed,
    No, the rotation is not affected by the Sun’s movements through the Galaxy.

  109. Carla says:

    Back to the extreme example..
    How fast would Ol Sol rotate with its termination shock at 1AU? If the interstellar pressure can push the termination shock in and out and with hemispheric asymmetrys you say no effect on rotation?

    Thanks Dr. S. but we need to start looking at the larger picture. Galaxy is bigger, Ol Sol is small, now who is puny?

    Back to that solar winds lightning link topic.

  110. lsvalgaard says:

    Carla says:
    May 15, 2014 at 6:07 pm
    How fast would Ol Sol rotate with its termination shock at 1AU? If the interstellar pressure can push the termination shock in and out and with hemispheric asymmetrys you say no effect on rotation?
    For the gazillionth time: the solar wind is supersonic and no effects can travel upstream. So no effect on rotation. Over billions of years the solar wind does carry angular momentum away from the Sun slowing down the rotation, but that is a different story.

  111. Carla says:

    No effects can travel upstream? Dr. S. Solar gravitational focusing cone does come to mind.
    Ok that aside.
    Check this out..
    “””These three epochs of observations indicate a consistent progression of flow longitudes that suggest that the effective flow of the local interstellar medium into the heliosphere may be rotating, with an approximately six degree change over the past 40 years. “””
    Gee full article listed as, NOT AVAILABLE, hmm go figure..

    Variations in the Directions of the Local Interstellar Wind

    Frisch, P. C.; Bzowski, M.; Livadiotis, G.; McComas, D. J.; Moebius, E.; Mueller, H.; Pryor, W. R.; Schwadron, N. A.; Ajello, J. M.; Vallerga, J. V.
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUSMSH51D..01F

  112. Carla says:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUSMSH51D..01F

    link got chopped in last post.

  113. Carla says:

    “”””an approximately six degree change over the past 40 years””””
    In Gleissberg years that is 15 degrees of change…

  114. Carla says:

    The rotational aspect is quite intriquing as well..

    …””””the local interstellar medium into the heliosphere may be rotating, with an approximately six degree change over the past 40 years. “””

    Now if all three super shells nearby are rotating, does the solar system encounter alternating winds and alternating magnetic field polarity?

Comments are closed.