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: why has the Sun’s conveyor belt slowed down? What would make it speed up again?
First, we don’t know yet what the ‘belt’ is doing at depth in the convection zone, we have only observed it close to the surface. Second, the ‘belt’ is like any other circulation, e.g. in the Earth’s atmosphere. There are internally driven waves, changes associated with changing temperature gradients, etc, so there could be many reasons that we eventually will figure out. Third, it is not certain that the belt has anything to do with the solar cycle because some models postulate that.
Robert Wood: What is the gravitational potential of an object at the center of the Earth?
The potential is V = -GM(r)/r. If M(r) = 4pi/3 * density* r^3, then V = – 4piG/3 * density * r^2, hence zero for r=0. The redshift is proportional to the potential hence goes to zero as well. I’m not quite sure what you mean by light ‘falling’, but since it is OT,maybe no need to dwell on that.
Robert Wood: leebert forgot the whole quote: The main reason for the smallness of this effect is that differences between gravitational forces do not fall off with the square of the distance, but with the cube of the distance but I took the whole quote to be understood, so no cleverness.
There is no doubt that SC23 is longer and SC24 is later than predicted.
NASA had a prediction that said SC24 would start March 08 but where split in the question if SC24 would be strong or weak.
Those who said that SC24 would be strong would change their minds and go for a small SC24 if it started after March 08 which should result in consensus that SC24 will be small. While it is a fact that SC24 now is really late, have NASA changed their mind towards a weak SC24 yet?
2nd question I have, are we able to predict a new Maunder minimum or will it strike us by surprise without any notice? Looking back in history those minimums seems to happen a few times every millenium and since it is about 350 years last one started it is not impossible that the next one is on the way. That is just my personal reflection about the frequency of Maunder type of solar minimums though.
But the question still remains, IF we can’t predict a new Maunder Minimum, how can we know that a new one isn’t on the way?
If a new MM will have the same impact on Europe as the last one, severe crop failures will once again hit us for decades. So imo it is important to know what causes such minimums and be able to predict them.
We have allready seen what food shortage can do to the world the last year, adding a possible solar driven cold period would be even worse.
Jerker A:
NASA has not changed their mind yet [they should].
MMs seem to occur at random:
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints
Usoskin, I. G.; Solanki, S. K.; Kovaltsov, G. A.
Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 471, Issue 1, August III 2007, pp.301-309
Abstract
Aims.Using a reconstruction of sunspot numbers stretching over multiple millennia, we analyze the statistics of the occurrence of grand minima and maxima and set new observational constraints on long-term solar and stellar dynamo models. Methods: We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics-based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux. A list of grand minima and maxima of solar activity is presented for the Holocene (since 9500 BC) and the statistics of both the length of individual events as well as the waiting time between them are analyzed. Results: The occurrence of grand minima/maxima is driven not by long-term cyclic variability, but by a stochastic/chaotic process. The waiting time distribution of the occurrence of grand minima/maxima deviates from an exponential distribution, implying that these events tend to cluster together with long event-free periods between the clusters. Two different types of grand minima are observed: short (30-90 years) minima of Maunder type and long (>110 years) minima of Spörer type, implying that a deterministic behaviour of the dynamo during a grand minimum defines its length. The duration of grand maxima follows an exponential distribution, suggesting that the duration of a grand maximum is determined by a random process. Conclusions: These results set new observational constraints upon the long-term behaviour of the solar dynamo.
‘…Are you with the Maunder cult, the Dalton cult, the hybrid cult, the Svalgaard cult, the normal cult, the Hathaway cult, or the Dikpati cult? (or are some of them sects? ;-))
How about the Blue Oyster Cult.
Thanks for the clarifications on determining the length of a solar cycle. Now if anyone wants to explain to me slo-o-owly the 88 year cycle with enharmonics, you will have my rapt attention.
That Cycle 24 plage seems to have been yet another damp squib.
Arthur Glass: I don’t think there is a 88-year cycle. There does seem to be a slow variation of sunspots over a time span of about 100 years, but this is not really a ‘cycle’, and we don’t have any good explanation for why there are those ‘heaves’ in solar activity, just like we don’t really know what causes the ~60-year ‘cycle’ in the PDO. Some internal wave or oscillation may be the cause of both.
Leif,
Your discussion on barycenters reminds me of the first time I was told that magnetic field lines do not exist. It took me months of discussion before I realized they were indeed mathematical constructs and don’t exist in reality.
Unless I am missing something, the same is true of barycenters. Something which does not exist in reality cannot cause real effects. Ergo, no barycenter effects.
Well, with regards to an observed object affected by the observer, maybe we shold stop all this activity.
After all, we are dramatically changing the climate of our world – why not etrapolate that to our sun?
Cheers!
hmmm – so much of interest on barycentres and cycles, predictive powers and correlations to climate here on Earth – as a general ecologist (and policy analyst) with advisory roles on land-use management and occasionally a little bit on energy policy, I try to keep myself up to date with all the relevant fields of discussion – its not easy!
Firstly – why no mention of Theodore Landscheidt’s work on correlating the movement of the barycentre with Gleissberg cycles of solar activity – or am I way out of date and Gleissberg cycles don’t exist. In his 2004 paper in Energy and Environment, Landscheidt generated a wave-form from the Newtonian physics of the barycentre movement – and articulated a theory of transfer of angular momentum as a potential driver of solar activity – whatever the soundness of this conjecture, he was able to predict both ENSO peaks and the amplitude of the sunspot cycle (to the apparent irritation of NASA, with whom he appears to have worked – and who couldn’t do either).
i couldn’t follow his further reasoning – that the wave form shifted phase and the lower amplitudes touched a threshold which triggered a following minimum – he gave a Dalton type for cycle 24 onwards as 15% and a Maunder type as 85%.
As far as I know, that might be entirely discredited – I haven’t seen it discussed, but one thing I do recall is that he talked of an 8 year time lag between solar and ocean cycles (to which his methodology was applied) and he predicted that the last major El Nino would be in 2002 – and lower than the 1998 high (which he also predicted in advance would follow from the 1990 solar maximum) – and he said that this last El Nino would obscure the effects of the lower solar 2000 maximum (which he predicted) until the end of 2007, when global cooling would become obvious!
I asked the Danish Space Centre (might have been Henrik Svensmark, certainly him or one of his colleagues) why they had not replicated Landscheidt’s work and the reply was they hadn’t thought about doing that and maybe they should. Is there anyone who has?
And meanwhile, back in Blighty, I asked our Hadley Centre if they could tell me whether the jetstream had shifted again – it did so in June 2007 and washed out our summer. We’ve had the same June experience – torrential rain and flooding in 2008. They couldn’t tell me as they don’t have anyone studying it – and referred me to a US aviation website that provides wonderful real-time graphics but no history.
As there are paleo-ecological studies that suggest the jetstream shifted south during the Maunder Minimum, and NASA has a team that is working on high level atmospheric winds shifting due to solar maximum/minimums probably driven by UV photochemical heating – I would have expected one of the foremost climate labs to at least have somebody studying the situation!
And finally, US hyrdo-geologist Charles Perry, will be giving a paper at the upcoming meeting of the Intl Geophysical Congress showing statistical correlations between solar cycles, the PDO, and shifts in the jetstream – all with time-lags that at first obscure the connections.
I am away from my office right now and can’t provide the links – but glad to if anyone wants to follow this up.
PS – missed adding ‘probability’ after 15% Dalton and 85% Maunder……
Raphael
Magnetic lines may be just a mathematical construct, however the existence of the field remains. When using dip meters and a compass to locate geologic anomilies I always had to draw magnetic lines to illustrate my findings.
There are also gravitational anomilies where a line from head to toe through your center of gravity does not point toward the exact cente of the earth.
I understand what you’re saying, Leif, re: freefall. Ideed, if we look at the reported flight characteristics of UFOs, we see that unless the passengers were in free fall, they would be killed by the tidal forces and if that was true, we wouldn’t be seeing UFOs stopping on a dime and doing 180 degree turns instantly. Gravity is curvature.
I didn’t realize we were seeing that, except in flights of fancy.
David and Jeff: apart from the UFO nonsense, you can be in free fall and yet be killed by tidal forces: if you are falling freely feet-first into a black hole [or a neutron star] the difference between gravity between your feet and your head will kill you. Free fall and tides are two different things but are always experienced together. The tides on the Sun raised by Jupiter are one millimeter high [1/25th of an inch].
peter taylor: again an example of that my explanation of why there is no barycentric effect was totally in vain. Landscheidt’s ideas are pseudo-astrology of the worst kind [I know by saying this that Landscheidt-supporters will be crawling out of the woodwork in droves, but so be it].
As to his predictions: here is one:
SWINGING SUN, 79-YEAR CYCLE AND CLIMATIC CHANGE [PDF 309K]
J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res., 1981, vol. 12, number 1, pp. 3-19.
ABSTRACT. The secular cycle of solar activity is related to the sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system. […] The next minimum in the 79-year cycle will occur in 1990. It will be more pronounced than the minimum in 1811.
The observed maximum in 1990 was one of the largest three or four ever observed…
As an example of the Landscheidt’s style you may consider this:
CREATIVE FUNCTIONS OF CYCLES: Predictable Phase-Shift in Solar-Terrestrial Cycles [PDF 269K]
Foundation for the Study of Cycles, May/June 1989
ABSTRACT. Recent research has shown that cycles are at the core of creativity. They form antagonistic centers of polar tension, the competing realms of which generate fractal boundaries, sites of instability where new forms emerge. This knowledge, when applied to cycles and boundaries in the solar system, makes it possible to predict phases of instability, phase-shift, and emergence of new patterns in solar-terrestrial cycles.
We do best by leaving all this well alone.
Whether or not *you’ve* seen them, we’re just using their empirically reported flight characteristics to illustrate an idea. Leif, by dismissing UFOs with a word, nonsense, you are showing ignorance and your objection does not represent a serous problem at all for any ‘alleged’ UFO crew.
g force is zero at center of mass of the free-falling frame
tidal force is the spatial derivative of g
no problem- differential calculus.
I know this is OT, but just a final word.
This issue, like climate skepticism, cannot just be dealt with by hand-waving.
Perhaps also, you missed Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s announcement that indeed the Gov’t, has been involved with all this ‘nonsense’ for years. I don’t think you or anyone else has the standing to refute him with a hand wave.
Reply: REEEAAAALLLYYYY off topic. Please let’s not expound on this any further~charles the moderator.
A reply to Leif was required, his objection needed to be dealt with, so, I think it’s only fair to let Leif consider what I wrote here, which is not irrelevant to our solar topic, Charles.
g force is zero at center of mass of the free-falling frame tidal force is the spatial derivative of g
no problem.
David Gladstone: unless passengers were in free fall, they would be killed by the tidal forces and if that was true, we wouldn’t be seeing UFOs stopping on a dime and doing 180 degree turns instantly
Although UFOs and my ignorance about them is OT, the free-fall/tidal-force things are not. The 180 turns on a dime does not generate any tidal forces or gravitational forces, but centrifugal forces [and those will kill you and them as well].
Leif, ok…
The radii of curvature at the center of mass of the ufo must be very large compared to its size in order that tidal forces not damage the crew and equipment. They feel no g-forces in sharp turns in warp drive.
if they fall into a black hole they will be killed, of course.
differential tidal force ~ (gradient of the g-force)(size of object)
Ted Annonson,
Yep, the magnetic field exists, and field lines are useful for illustration when because they correspond with something that exists. If they did not, the illustration would be meaningless.
The Gravitational field (or more properly the curvature of spacetime) exists, and the barycenter is useful for illustration, when they correspond with something that exists. When they do not, the illustration is meaningless.
Leif used an thought experiment where he moves a pea some great distance from the sun in order to change the location of the sun-pea barycenter. But this new location does not correspond with the warping of spacetime, and the barycenter illustration is meaningless.
David Gladstone: assuming that the turn is in a horizontal plane, g-force is constant, thus gradient of g is zero, thus tidal force is also 0. No tidal forces from turns, no matter how small or large the ‘radii of curvature’ are. When you talk about warp-drives you are leaving me and science as we know it behind in the dust. I’ll gladly assent to ignorance in that regard, and with warp being brought in, solar topics take leave.
Raphael: “The Gravitational field (or more properly the curvature of spacetime) exists, and the barycenter is useful for illustration, when they correspond with something that exists. When they do not, the illustration is meaningless”
is somewhat muddled. The gravitational field exists [provided there is some mass]. The barycenter exists [in our head] because it is a computed quantity.
“Leif used an thought experiment where he moves a pea some great distance from the sun in order to change the location of the sun-pea barycenter. But this new location does not correspond with the warping of spacetime, and the barycenter illustration is meaningless”
the pea exists [in the experiment] and changes the barycenter of the Solar System [which now includes the pea]. This new barycenter exists [in our head] just as much as the old one, because it is now computed with the pea included.
In either case, the two barycenters do not warp spacetime, but the pea certainly does. The meaning associated with the barycenters [before and after the pea] is the same; the central issue is that the Sun does not feel any force by us moving the barycenter around [with the pea] or by the planets revolving in their orbits, and that therefore the solar cycle is not due to the Sun moving in a tight and jerky orbit as seen from the moving barycenter. And this provides our link back to the topic of the blog.
Leif,
Just one simple question? Would observers above the plane of the Solar System see the Sun wobble as the planets orbited it? I understand that the Sun will perceive no acceleration and I am not asking about tidal effects.
Thanks in advance.
Steve
Ooops! I waited too long to post my previous comment. I hope I have not just asked a redundant question. Sorry If I have.
statePoet: asks “Would observers above the plane of the Solar System see the Sun wobble as the planets orbited it?”
A good illustration can be found at the Wikipedia site for barycenter
here showing two bodies with unequal mass orbiting each other. You can see their orbits as the red circles. Note that the distance between the two bodies stays constant = the sun of the two radii. And that was the original question that started all this: should we adjust the f10.7 radio flux for the barycenter distance rather than the Sun distance?