From SIDC (Solar Influences Data analysis Center): http://sidc.oma.be/products/quieta/
START OF ALL QUIET ALERT ………………….. The SIDC – RWC
Belgium expects quiet Space Weather conditions for the next 48 hours or until further notice. This implies that: * the solar X-ray output is expected to remain below C-class level, * the K_p index is expected to remain below 5, * the high-energy proton fluxes are expected to remain below the event threshold.
They should have also added…”Have a nice weekend!”
The monthly sunspot numbers are low, really low:
200801 2008.041 3.4 * 4.2 * 200802 2008.123 2.1 * 200803 2008.205 9.3 * 200804 2008.287 2.9 * 200805 2008.372 2.9 * 200806 2008.454 3.1 * 200807 2008.539 0.5 *
And the 10.7CM radio flux is holding below 67.
h/t to Barry Hearn
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dennis Sharp,
According to NCAR, Boulder temperatures are slightly above normal, with no readings over 100.
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/weather.cgi?fields=tdry&fields=rh&fields=cpres0&fields=wspd&fields=wdir&fields=raina&site=fl&units=english&period=monthly
According to USHCN, Boulder is about two degrees cooler than it was in 1934, even after USHCN adjustments and a likely upwards data error starting in 2000.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=050848&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TAVE&minyear=1893&maxyear=2006
Fort Collins temperatures are slightly above normal, with no readings over 100.
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/~autowx/fclwx_plotsearch.php?graph=1&span=20&station=FCLWX&year=2008&month=07&day=31&dimensions=2
Denver has turned into a massive heat island. High temperature records there are essentially meaningless. If you look at less urban areas surrounding Denver, like Boulder and Fort Collins, you get a more accurate picture of the climate.
It is going to be difficult to make a case for a lot of “global warming” in Colorado.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/co/YearTDeptHPRCC-CO.png
It has generally been a dry summer in London, just unusually cool.
Glenn,
As you can see from the CT side by side you posted, there is no way that the Arctic lost 1 million km2 of ice in the last 24 hours. The AO is negative and temperatures at the NOAA buoy near the north pole have been close to freezing or below.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/30065_atmos_recent.html
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
Something looks really odd about the NSIDC graph. I captured an image of the same graph on August 1 – and it was turning upwards, heading back to normal. They changed the graph at 23:20 GMT August 2 and knocked nearly 1M km2 off the extent.
jeez,
If Leif doesn’t want to discuss them, he doesn’t have to. It is not his blog. If Anthony doesn’t want it discussed, it’s his blog, his rules. I have no dog in this fight, but to tell people not to discuss something just because Leif doesn’t want it discussed bothers me. If I can read about it here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/304629?cookieSet=1
then it seems to me rather improper to say it cannot be discussed. It may well be that most of the variations of this theory are nonsense, and Leif’s frustration with the arguments for it are justified. But to declare a topic off-limits like this just on the say so of someone who doesn’t like it is what I expect from the AGW (the science is settled) crowd.
I also suspect this is not what Leif was asking. I think he’d rather hear from Anthony that he’s not interested in supporting these discussions because he agrees with Leif that they are nonsense. Or he was just expressing frustration that Anthony lets the discussions go on without saying anything. I don’t think Leif was asking for censorship. He’s a little too classy for that.
If Anthony wants to take sides, or not, let him do so. But on a blog like this, these discussions die out rather quickly, and saying nothing would have brought that about soon enough. If anything, Leif is partly responsible for giving it life. If he’d left the subject alone, the barycenter crowd would just be preaching to the choir, and soon everyone would get bored and move on.
Basil
Noted, and for the record, it wasn’t a prohibition. He’s just tired of it and I was making that known.
BTW, your link above is session sensitive.
Jeez, you can post this if you think this adds to conversation. I’m not just trying to get in the last word, but if it’s beating a dead horse & you’d rather not approve it, I’ll understand — leebert
In the 1970’s the Voyager craft revealed gravity wave cords in Saturn’s rings. Similar phenomena occur in galactic spiral arm structures. So if a planetary system had any inherent orbital wobbles, it could be the product of the star itself that has evolved and settled in over the life of the solar system, with additional perturbations piled up from lunar inertial effects, comet & asteroid sling shot effects, etc.
We know the tidal forces of the moon on the Earth itself, but it’s been said that the Earth-moon pair is almost functionally a binary planetary system. But our sun is several magnitudes more massive than even its largest planet, Jupiter. To me the dominance of the sun’s internal “weather” is far more plausible than some very slight tidal forces that are far less than the functional effect of Titan on Saturn or Ganymede on Jupiter.
Looking at Jupiter I think reveals a great deal about the sun, in terms of internal convective layers, etc. Jupiter demonstrates very well how an energetic fluid system follows a stable pattern of cycles in its internally generated weather system (the effect of solar radiance is slight, IIRC).
Imagine then the same convective banding phenomenon in the sun. I can surmise there are perfectly good reasons why the sun’s “weather” is internally driven given the vast magnetic fields and energy burbling up from within, compounding the natural banding effect of a massive self-contained & free-standing fluid dynamo.
The magnetic dynamo of the sun gets twirled around the sun like a spun ball of cotton candy that can then twist & writhe to release some of the pent up tension. But a system as structured and self-generating as the sun would almost certainly inhere regular cycles as various parameters with their own schedules that cycle in and out of phase, leading to higher peaks and deeper troughs depending on inter-frequency overlaps and advective amplitude transfers.
Hope that helps.
Does anyone know what the running number is so far for the solar dimming since circa 1992? Last I heard it was around -0.1 degrC.
Patrick,
I’ve checked a couple times with a straightedge to determine whether the graph is updated daily, and appears not to be the case. For example, the latest update today is set to the left of the line dividing July from Aug, and it is Aug 2. I suspect this is normalized data that lags real time (2,3 days?). Which is the reason for the dates I used for my Igloo reference.
Oh, I’m looking at ARGOS bouy data from
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/newdata.htm
What’s the correlation between sun spot numbers and global temperature anyhow? Yeah, I know that lower solar activity is supposed to mean cooler temperatures, but what is the numerical correlation between monthly sun spot numbers and temperature anomaly? I’m sure that I could figure it out for myself, but it has been 10 years since college stats for me, I’m lazy and would just as soon get some one smarter than me do my homework.
An interesting test might be to subtract the trend, then test the correlation. I know that I know how to do this, but I need a review. Unfortunately, I sold that text book a long time ago. Anyhow, thanks for your insight and your time.
Somebody dropped a decimal place. The melt is just over 100000 sq km according to IARC-JAXA
here
I agree with Leif that solar system barycentric variations do not directly affect our planet, but I still don’t accept the premise it would not affect solar output which in turn does drive our climate.
BTW, since Relativity has crept into the discussion, I do wonder if the acceleration of the pea as it was moved to ever increasing distances from the sun would affect the solar barycenter do to an increase in the pea’s mass as its velocity approached C? Also how would this affect the shelf-life of the pea considering relativistic time dilation?
Fun moments :).
” Leif Svalgaard (20:34:13) :
Robert Wood: Yeah, in my haste I had it backwards; we are farthest, not closest to the sun in July. My bad, a senior moment. The point still stands, that we should adjust for the varying distance.
REPLY: Hey Leif, don’t feel bad, I missed a counted SC24 sunspot event tonight! 😉 – Anthony ”
Leif, I think this is the point to tell once more my Feynman story, which would make any scientist that has put a foot in the mouth feel in good company.
This is in the 1980s, after Feynman had his first operations and when he was feeling well enough to go to conferences, in Crete, at a theoretical workshop. It is the second day he is in Greece, the first being spent going around the “must sees” of Athens with yours truly, so definitely jet lagged.
It is after sunset, and many eminent physicists are having a drink on a veranda overlooking the Aegean, and several greek ones from other disciplines attracted by the pole of Feynman (as yours truly).
There is small talk and a lull in conversation and suddenly the full moon draws the attention on the horizon in all its glory, reflected in the waters. Feynman looks and observes: ” that must be the West then”.
The interest in the story is not the slip of Feynman, it is the reaction of the physicists. Feynman said it after all, so that must be the west. I do not remember if T’Hooft was there at the time, he sure was at the workshop. It remained for yours truly, youngest and most irrelevant in the company to sputter: “but,but, but….”.
I was reminded of this, because my first reaction to these posts was ” Leif said it so it must be ok” :). Age gets skeptics too.
Leif Please! I realise that you are possessed of great knowledge, but you do not seemed to be endowed with much tolerance. Cannot you appreciate that some posters here do not have your knowledge- a lack they admit- but are really trying to understand by putting forward ideas, ideas that I am sure they know will be shown by others to require some ‘adjustments’ (A word I use in the nicest way!). We try and should not be scorned for our efforts. I know that you are a better person than that Leif. By the way, I am setting myself up here by saying that when we have the Sun, the Earth, and Jupiter lined up in that order, this differs in pull on the Earth by Jupiter for when we have the Earth, the Sun , and Jupiter lined up in that order.Square of distance etc. One scenario has the Earth pulled away from the sun, and the other scenario has the Earth pulled towards the sun. The sun and Jupiter in these circumstances – ignoring the other planets – would maintain the same distance between each other. I am just working on the numbers and will get back to you.
Patrick Henry (19:57:06)
I also noticed that strange turn in the daily update at the NSIDC. I left a comment earlier on Saturday 2 Aug at the Polar Ice Check – still a lot of ice up there post about how the melt rate seemed to be slowing. A few hours later, that uptick, which had been happening for a few days, vanished and suddenly is headed in the opposite direction – towards last year’s record melt.
That’s a huge one day change. Hope you saved that captured image of the graph and can share it with Anthony and the rest of his horde here.
statePoet1775 (18:39:48) :
“BTW, does anyone have diagram of how the sun wobbles?”
Yes, I have gone through the calculations. You can find the diagrams at
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/sim1/
OK, here I may be stepping on toes, but let me give my view on this barycenter business.
It is all about coordinate systems. I.e. who is sitting at (0,0,0) and who is moving with respect to (0,0,0).
And it is all about natural coordinate systems. Motions appear simpler in the natural coordinate systems, i.e. the one where the forces that give rise to motions are expressed simply.
Ancient Greeks (and the Persians before them) had their (0,0,0) on the stationary earth, and were observing the planets and stars. They saw plenty of wobbles in their coordinate system. They knew nothing about gravity as a force. They organized their observations into the ecliptic, i.e. the path the sun traces every day against the immovable (to them) stars, and the dance of the planets during the year around the ecliptic in cycles called epicycles . Retrograde mercury ( astrology) comes from this coordinate system, when mercury is moving on the celestial sphere against the motion of the sun on the ecliptic. Every time a new planet was observed an epicycle was added. This works , except it is like a series of complicated yoga positions.
Then came Copernicus and the sun centered theory of the cosmos ( incidentally there was a Byzantine named Chionides who proposed it first during the middle ages, and is referred in the manuscripts of Copernicus) and it made everything mathematically simpler.Then Kepler then Newton who gave a reason WHY this coordinate system was the natural coordinate system: it is gravity.
The barycenter is another coordinate system , like the epicycles are another coordinate system, except the other way: it mathematically explains the motions better. IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE FORCES as the epicycles do not affect the forces. They are both a mathematical description, the only one for the ancients (epicycles) and a sometimes convenient one for the moderns (barycernter).
As Basil points out, I’m partly to blame, because I speak up when I see nonsense be peddled. But if one does not do that, the nonsense may be repeated often enough that it acquires a life of its own, and especially in these ‘internet days’ may be spread widely enough that people begin to believe it, and THAT must be resisted.
Since there is a loose correlation between the sunspot cycle and Jupiter’s orbit (near 11 years), and between Saturn’s orbit and the PDO (near 30 years), should w e consult the Astrologers for our next weather report? LOL
According to Space Weather.com, an Aug 2 SOHO magnetogram shows a magnetic dipole in the Northern hemisphere that may develop into a cycle 24 sunspot.
Sorry for being off topic,
but checking sea ice extent this morning I noticed conflicting data.
Here, a big dip in arctic sea ice is shown:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
But here, the ice shows the opposite trend:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
How can they both be correct?
Aristarchus of Samos was first to propose the heliocentric view of teh Solar system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
At Dr. Tony Phillips’ excellent and absolutely essential website this morning
http://spaceweather.com
there is a magnificent photograph of Friday’s total solar eclipse at totality.
A fellow named Hartwig Luethen went to Kochenovo, west of Novosibirsk, Russia to capture this image, and he outdid himself.
As Dr. Tony describes it, “The resulting composite [24 exposures varying in length from 1/500 to 2 seconds] shows the ghostly corona, a magnetic prominence surging over the lunar limb, and the Earthlit surface of the Moon itself.”
If you don’t get to it today, go to the website and load the archives [upper right corner of the page] and load the archive of today, August 3.
I am confused. According to the Solar Terrestrial Activity site, http://dxlc.com/solar/ Cycle 23 began in May of 1996. or 12 years and two months ago (146 months), which would, according to the archives on that site, make it longer than any cycle since the middle of the 19th c.
NSIDC is known for not making their data public (graphs is all you get) and for adjusting the data without any explanation.
Look at the change they made to the historical sea ice index figures in 2007 (and no explanation was ever provided) – a Before and After animation gif. It is clear why, all of a sudden, there was a dramatic increase in melt in 2007.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
And the hourly weather data for the NorthPole Webcam bouy (NPEO 2008) is graphed here.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
And the hourly data is here (one day old.) It looks like there was a dramatic increase in temps on August 2nd because it was -3.78C on August 1st and has not broke the 0.0C mark since mid-July.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/weather_data/2008/07100_hdr.wx
Re Pierre Gosselin (02:17:11) :
As I said in an earlier post, the sea ice index seems to be wrong.
Here’s a graph of the last 30 days for 2003,2007, and 2008 from
IARC-JAXA data. The last melt for 2008 was just over 100,000 km2.
link
The three longest cycles appear to have been 4, 5 and 6. Cycles 5 and 6, of course, constitute the Dalton Minimum; the smoothed sunspot number ‘peaked’ at solar maximum at 50 in both cycles. Cycle 4, on the other hand, was quite robust–just as 23 has been– with a maximum sunspot number of 120+
For the layman new to this subject, it is all ve-r-r-ry interesting. It’s gotten so the third thing I do of a morning is check out the suspot number–after checking the SOI and global SST’s.