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.
statePoet: if you are serious about G.R. then I can recommend http://books.google.com/books?id=YA8rxOn9H1sC&dq=general+relativity+geometrical+approach&pg=PP1&ots=EZKQV4N0cK&sig=6k_a7M7TFS0YmF48STfh5jTQAxw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result :
General Relativity: A Geometric Approach
By Malcolm Ludvigsen
Published by Cambridge University Press, 1999
ISBN 052163976X, 9780521639767
217 pages
leebert: A modern treatment of the dancing angels problem can be found here
It is not primarily the tidal effects which causes the changes in the Sun’s output, but it is the extreme points in the variations of the solar angular momentum which causes the changes according to Landscheidt and others. In other words it’s the wobbles of the Sun’s trajectory, the Sun is a rotating gyro, which results in variation in the forces on the plasma with the strongest forces at the equator and successive lower forces at higher latitudes.
Therefore the angular rotation of the plasma near the equator is higher near the equator than near the poles and higher near the surface then in the interior of the Sun.
These changes are considerably in its scale. The orbital angular momentum varies from -0.1•10E+47 to 4.3• 10E+47 g cm2 s-1
I have the barycentric values for the Sun from JPL and I just looked at the low extreme values during the solar minima which causes the low temperatures.
Here is the year and values
Maunder
1632 -0.04e+47
1656 0.51e+47
1671 0.08e+47
1694 0.63e+47
Dalton
1772 0.23e+47
1795 0.93e+47
1811 -0.09e+47
1835 0.66e+47
Current
1951 0.12e+47
1990 -0.08e+47
2029 0.16e+47
As you can see the extreme value during 1990 was deeper than during the first and deepest extreme point during the Maunder minimum in 1632, but almost of the same size as in 1811 during the Dalton minimum. The extreme points seem to occur 15-20 years before the temperature drops on Earth.
Leif,
Thanks. I ordered the book. I prefer to read the old fashioned way from a book . The books looks good. And now for dancing angels.
Per: “In other words it’s the wobbles of the Sun’s trajectory, the Sun is a rotating gyro, which results in variation in the forces on the plasma with the strongest forces at the equator and successive lower forces at higher latitudes.
Therefore the angular rotation of the plasma near the equator is higher near the equator than near the poles and higher near the surface then in the interior of the Sun.”
What you describe is physically muddled, for a correct description of the rotation and flows in the Sun see f.ex. here
In any event, if there are so large variations in the angular momentum of the Sun, the rotation rate should vary a lot with time. No such variation has been securely observed over hundreds of years of observation. Very subtle changes have been claimed from time to time, but no generally accepted picture has been established, so it is not clear what effect the non-existent changes in the rotation rate will have on the temperature of the Earth or any other quantity.
Leif,
Per dancing angels, what a waste of brilliant minds. Would you kindly ask a friend or two to apply their minds to why we may be heading into an economic depression? I am just so sure that it is a high priority of God that dancing angels be considered when millions may end up unemployed or worse. Just as sure as I am that He wants us to be concerned about global climate when instead of trying to win over the heathens, we are killing them! We haven’t got 10 simple Commandments down but He expects us to control the Earth’s climate?
And what about those pure mathematicians who want nothing to do with real applications? Should their jobs be spared in a depression?
But on the other hand, it might be safer for the world if they just stay in their abstract world. Still, it is their world too. They should at least be a little concerned about it. Let them develop a decent economic simulator. Somebody has clearly screwed up.
/rant off
Leif,
I think the reason it is a common question is obvious. Teachers tell students, “This is how it works.” The students infer that this is an accurate depiction of reality, while it was only “a depiction good enough for our purposes.” When taught the basics of gravity, the barycenter is either stationary or moving smoothly between two bodies. The students infer these are “real” rather than “good enough.”
End formal education.
If they later consider a many body problem, It is rather obvious that the barycenter will behave in a new fashion. If they believe their understanding is real, it is logical for them to conclude that this new behavior requires additional forces to explain. Further, it is natural to wonder what effect those forces have.
Rapharel: We can put your theory to the test by asking the readers here who are ‘barycenter enthusiasts’ if they disagree with your assessment.
Leif,
All we need now are some enthusiasts to speak up.
And I think it’s gonna be alright
Yeah, the worst is over now
The mornin’ sun is shinin’ like a red rubber ball
Raphael (19:03:52) :
Terry Prachett and co authors in one of the three books “the science of Discworld” do a very good job in describing “lies we tell children as we educate them”, i.e. your “good enough”, and how this carries on all through the educational edifice. Example: mechanics is good enough for engineering, quantum mechanics for electronic engineering, … And the question is, our scientific knowledge limits are what is good enough at our level, or are they the ultimate limits? I would suspect the first, which is what I call keeping an open mind for a next generation of scientific creativity . After all, right before quantum mechanics upset the cart the physicists of that generation believed they had the theory of everything after Newton and Maxwell.
There is a greek word accompanying the word ‘hubris” which has not come through to the latin derived languages “Oiesis”, it means pride that leads to hubris. I find climatologists particularly are full of it, and possibly all scientists who are passionate about their research, as they should be, have some of it: you need to usurp fire from the gods.
And this pride leads people astray on a tangent from their level of “good enough”, from people believing in astrology and UFOs to climatologists believing the lies they tell all of us.
On the other hand this pride is what advances the frontiers of knowledge; the incessant push to see over the next mountain. As people, as a culture, we cover the whole phase space of possible and probable routes, until some of us hit on the current jackpot, or minimum Action line ( take your pick).
“As people, as a culture, we cover the whole phase space of possible and probable routes, until some of us hit on the current jackpot, or minimum Action line ( take your pick).” anna v
I was thinking something along those lines yesterday. Spooky action at a distance? But more along the lines of moral investigation. I do love western science. While other cultures can speculate about ultimate questions, the West is closing in on some answers. ETs for instance, where are they? What if we are the only intelligent life in the Universe? Doesn’t that put us back at the center of the universe? (Not literally, but in terms of importance.) I disagree with much that people believe, but i do appreciate, in many cases, that they are exploring the territory. SETI is NOT a waste of time even though I am almost certain that the only answer it will ever give is negative.
regards
Lief:
> A modern treatment of the dancing angels problem can be found here
Hah. Saved for further musings.
After all, what observer made the first waves collapse into form? As the Diamond Sutra says, Form is Emptiness; Emptiness, Form. Or is the “Great Electron” just superposed in fractalesque splendor, reified by observation.
In Robert Sawyer’s amusing book “Calculating God,” he quotes the space alien saying “God observes, wavefronts collapse.”
Enter the (ahem) “quantum consciousness” speculations. Here’s one that cites Vajrayanist theology’s assertion that primordial mind in non-material realms counts as primordial wave-collapsing observers of the early cosmos. This writer claims “sentience” is the litmus, but that reifies mind as “consciousness” as representing quintessential “mind.” If this is a valid interpretation of of Vajrayanist theology, doesn’t this also introduce a God/creator concept?
Quoting myself from elsewhen….
God: An anthropic, wave-collapsing, super-posing eyeball watching our little petri dish in n-space who intercedes in ways unseen, unknown and untested.
Reply:This may get deleted later as it is bait for a religious discussion WHICH WE DO NOT WANT, so please, please, no one take the bait~charles the moderator.
I don’t like sushi to borrow someone else’s joke. Plus, pick your battles well is a motto I’m learning.
Forget last post of mine, I may actually agree somewhat!
Except I used the word correctly.
Please abate from taking the bait.
Don’t be pushy, avoid the sushi.