This is unusual. A live media teleconference on the sun. Even more unusual is this statement:
The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
As you may recall, I posted an entry about the Ulysses mission back on June 16th and the findings of a lowered magnetic field in the sun, from the JPL press release then:
Ulysses ends its career after revealing that the magnetic field emanating from the sun’s poles is much weaker than previously observed. This could mean the upcoming solar maximum period will be less intense than in recent history.
We live in interesting times.
Dwayne Brown
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1726
DC Agle
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-393-9011
MEDIA ADVISORY : M08-176
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html
NASA To Discuss Conditions On And Surrounding The Sun
WASHINGTON — NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
Ulysses was the first mission to survey the space environment above and below the poles of the sun. The reams of data Ulysses returned have changed forever the way scientists view our star and its effects. The venerable spacecraft has lasted more than 17 years – almost four times its expected mission lifetime.
The panelists are:
— Ed Smith, NASA Ulysses project scientist and magnetic field instrument investigator, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
— Dave McComas, Ulysses solar wind instrument principal investigator, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio
— Karine Issautier, Ulysses radio wave lead investigator, Observatoire de Paris, Meudon, France
— Nancy Crooker, Research Professor, Boston University, Boston, Mass.
Reporters should call 866-617-1526 and use the pass code “sun” to participate in the teleconference. International media should call 1-210-795-0624.
To access visuals that will the accompany presentations, go to:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ulysses-20080923.html
Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:
– end –
h/t to John Sumpton
matt v. (12:19:40) :
You can see that there are web pages that are starting to show some of the electrical universe data as it relates to our planet. More will come in the future . Tesla encountered the same scientific resistance when he tried to let the electrical cat out of the bag.
There are electric currents in space and in the ionosphere, and in the lower atmosphere, in the sea, in the ground, everywhere. They are just not generated the way the Electric Universe posits. And it is not something new. The currents in the ionosphere were first suggested in the 1880s, and observed on the ground in the 1840s when they interfered with telegraph communications when the Sun acted up.
@Leif:
When I was a child and had too much time on my hands, I once believed Immanuel Velikovsky.
Now isn’t that silly?
“If you want to insult, you better have your stuff correct.”
From the site you just recommended:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
You’ll notice that there is a noticeable difference between cycle 23 and 13.
Glenn (12:38:36) :
From the site you just recommended:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfaml.html
You’ll notice that there is a noticeable difference between cycle 23 and 13.
Yes, and if you compare the Wolf number with the Group sunspot number for cycles before those, you will see even bigger differences. This is because those two series are both incorrectly calibrated, as we have gone over so many times. You can disagree with that and let it be.
Dee Norris (12:36:09) :
When I was a child and had too much time on my hands, I once believed Immanuel Velikovsky. Now isn’t that silly?
There are still lots of people that believe in Velikovsky. Carl Sagan fought in vain against that. There is nothing one can do. 45% [or so] of all Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Same thing.
@Leif
Oh, I know, they do. I guess by being allowed to believe in Velikovsky, Von Daniken and similar ‘scientists’ in my pre-teens, it contributed to my adult tendency toward skepticism of any popular science theories especially when promoted by the media and non-scientists.
Carl passed too soon after The Demon Haunted World, IMHO.
I have no scientific training but depend on those that do to give me views on subjects such as AGW free of political bias.
They may have a viewpoint that l disagree with but it is from knowledge and conviction that they argue.
Nobody mentions 2,500 scientists, melting ice caps etc…what a relief.
If I can grasp that:- (a) The climate models have been compromised by the findings of the Aqua satellite and (b) The theory of cosmic rays and their effects on the planet when sunspots are scarce then, I expect the media to be able to understand it as well.
Sadly their bias and ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
I actually heard one of the UK’s top political journalists recentlty describe C02 as a “pollutant”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will continue to monitor this site and thank Anthony for all his hard work.
It will indeed be interesting to see what NASA. have to say.
Leif, thanks for your reply. (11:48:39)
Perhaps some of the postings are hilarious but from a lay-person’s point of view the electric model seems very logical and I wonder why it is considered pseudo-science?
For example, in the nuclear model I wonder how the sun’s corona can be so much hotter than it’s surface when it gets it’s energy from an internal source? A source of energy coming from outside the sun would seem more plausible given this fact.
The origin of the massive canyon on Mars — Valle Marineris: 3,000 kilometers long, up to 600 kilometers across and 8 kilometers deep — still remains unknown apparently, yet the way in which it was created can be explained through electrical arcing (between it and another planet or moon.) Other things like the NASA probe which was slammed into an asteroid (or comet) a few years back showed a reaction which was more in line with the electric theorists’ predictions rather than those of the surprised scientists at NASA (size of crater, size of flash as probe hit the asteroid etc.)
The electric model may well be pseudo science, but I tend to like things which can be explained in a non-convoluted and common sense way.
@Gavin:
The generally accepted theory for the formation of Valle Marineris is that it is a rift valley, similar to the rift valley in East Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris#Formation
Gavin (13:28:33) :
For example, in the nuclear model I wonder how the sun’s corona can be so much hotter than it’s surface when it gets it’s energy from an internal source? A source of energy coming from outside the sun would seem more plausible given this fact.
– The negative charge continually explodes electrically in the photosphere as solar wind which never stops. Its high velocity of typically 750km/s would need 24million Kelvin to be emitted thermally! But the solar surface is only 6000K hot.
It is hard to know where to begin. But let’s take the above sentence. Taken at face value it says [somewhat obscurely ‘explodes’?] that the solar wind should be negatively charged, i.e. electrons. We send spacecrafts out into the solar wind and they find that it is neutral, the number of protons just matches the number of electrons [there are some other stuff as well, but in small quantities only]. So an observational refutation. Then it goes on to say that the corona should be millions of degrees hot to explain its rapid expansion. And the solar wind is millions of degrees hot. We know that from the spectral lines that we can see. As the corona expands into the solar wind it cools a bit [expanding gas does that], but still when it reaches the Earth its temperature is 100,000 K.
It is, indeed, a fact needing an explanation that something must be heating the corona because the photosphere is only 6000 K. It is not that we don’t ‘know’ what the mechanism is. It is that there are plenty of good explanations for this, we just don’t know which is the correct one. Part of the explanation is that the corona is so THIN. The situation can be likened to cracking a bullwhip. The thick handle does not require much movement [energy] to make the thin tip move at high speed [exceeding the speed of sound even to make that ‘crack’]. Was that common sense enough?
Dee and Matt, thanks for the links. Had a quick look and will revisit tomorrow (it’s late here.)
Dee: re. the Valle Marineris I got my info from NASA’s ‘Astronomy Picture of the Day.’ Although it is a bit outdated (Aug ’03) NASA’s blurb says; “The origin of the Valles Marineris remains unknown, although a leading hypothesis holds that it started as a crack billions of years ago as the planet cooled. Recently, several geologic processes have been identified in the canyon.”
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030824.html
Leif (12:31:13) :
There are electric currents in space and in the ionosphere, and in the lower atmosphere, in the sea, in the ground, everywhere. They are just not generated the way the Electric Universe posits.
Leif, I’m open to all views and would be interested to know how these electrical currents, particularly the ones in deep space, are generated in the conventional view of the universe? Thanks.
“The reported sunspot numbers for cycle 13 are 37% too small as I have discussed earlier”
And as a number have pointed out-here, at CA and in the literature-the demonstration: that this is fact is not accepted (politely speaking). So none out of three is meaningful, bears defending?
“This is because those two series are both incorrectly calibrated, as we have gone over so many times. You can disagree with that and let it be.”
Well, “we” have not gone over specifically those two series at all, but I can also continue to regard what the vast majority of literature has to say on the subject of historical solar activity/temp relationship, and distrustful of one or a few making brand new claims in the present state of the AGW controversy that are trying three ways from Sunday to discount any relationship between historical and modern correlations between the Sun and climate changes. And not let it be.
By the way, what are your views on Froehlich’s use of GISS and HADCRUT3 temperatures? It appears to me that both show increases from 1979 perhaps .2C higher than UAH or RSS. Is there a reason, or is it just to reinforce the idea that solar activity has decreased a little but temps have kept increasing?
Glenn (14:48:14) :
distrustful of one or a few making brand new claims in the present state of the AGW controversy
I don’t think my work has any bearing at all on the AGW controversy. It is strictly about getting the solar data right. One’s view on AGW should not in any way bias one’s attitude or position about Solar Science or data.
By the way, what are your views on Froehlich’s use of GISS and HADCRUT3 temperatures?
I think that Froehlisch like you prefer ‘official’ data 🙂
is it just to reinforce the idea that solar activity has decreased a little but temps have kept increasing?
Froehlich does not have any preconceived ideas about this, and is not out nursing an agenda. He just tells you what in his opinion [possibly colored a bit by his co-author Mike Lockwood] the data shows.
Gary Gulrud (14:38:04) :
the demonstration: that this is fact is not accepted (politely speaking).
One should always be polite. Perhaps you could have said: “is not accepted yet”.
Have you looked at the evidence that I have trotted out for this? And why not?
By the way, what are your views on Froehlich’s use of GISS and HADCRUT3 temperatures?
“I think that Froehlisch like you prefer ‘official’ data :-)”
Perhaps if I ask again you will not be evasive or playful.
What are your views on the use of GISS and HADCRUT3 over other sources? Was it, to use your word, the “right” thing to do?
a lower magnetic feild in the sun could have a impact on the earths stablity
it wont be enough to be felt right away but over time as the magnetic feild weakens the earth might tilt a degree or so. This change you will notice in the weather, so more freakish weather ahead.
@John 3:16
Perhaps we are coming around to Velikovsky again, but I am not sure why the earth would tilt a degree or so. I don’t believe that in past instances of a weakened solar magnetic field this has happen.
“He just tells you what in his opinion [possibly colored a bit by his co-author Mike Lockwood] the data shows.”
Concerning global temperatures, what is “the” data? GISS, HADCRUT3, UAH, RSS?
[…] NEWS: NASA to hold press conference on the state of the sun This is unusual. A live media teleconference on the sun. Even more unusual is this statement: […]
The push on the planet to engage in attempts to garner control of the electro-magnetic spectrum, i.e. massive antenna arrays, ionization of atmosphere (aerial aerosol particulate injection programs a critical factor in accomplishing such) have had their effects on the solar system and the sun itself.
The solar system is a Whole System, and responds via resonance factor to what goes on in parts of it.
The manipulations on earth by people who admit they were not sure of consequences, have yielded consequences.
This information on the sun, and the rest of the solar system, indicative of those consequences.
Man did this.
I’ve gained 10 pounds. Does that count? Have I now tilted the Earth with my short somewhat pudgy frame compared to when I was 13? Has my footprint gotten deeper in the sand? Maybe the increase in weight around the world is what is tilting the Earth. Does the changing magnetic pole in the Arctic correspond with weight gain world wide? Actually I think I may be on to something. The increasing obesity of humans IS correlated to recent warming. But if we lose weight it will only be a temporary pause along the way to increased warming due to increased body insulation.
Regarding the resonance factor eluded to above, if women would stop singing soprano, maybe we wouldn’t resonate as much. At least I don’t have to feel guilty about that one. For a shorty, my voice is on the throaty bass side of femininity.
Sorry Anthony, the Devil made me do it.
Wait a minute! I was just taken off the hook! MAN did this! That means I can have that second piece of chocolate along with my red wine for tonight. YES! It is GOOD to be woman.
Glenn (16:53:11) :
“He just tells you what in his opinion [possibly colored a bit by his co-author Mike Lockwood] the data shows.”
Concerning global temperatures, what is “the” data? GISS, HADCRUT3, UAH, RSS?
You just told us what he used…
Leif … yes, I knew you were going to answer by pointing to the moon (Buddha reference… ;-). And I should look to the moon, not the finger pointing to the moon. Yes of course the seas wobble, but I was facetiously referring to what I shall refer to as “Svalgaard’s Bane,” namely solar barycentric climate theory.
Although I agree, and as I recall so would Jan Janssens (not to put words in his mouth), I still see that as a tough one. For what looks to me to be obvious reasons this is frustrating to many. The historical trend analyses seem so compelling, but the underpinning causal links so elusive. This is hard to shake as many scientists have pointed to the apparent correlation of historical climate with longer-term solar cycles.
Case in point, the brief for a TSI / UV-B causal link has dropped down a few notches from full direct causal linkage to – perhaps – noise artifact. But would that necessarily be so? Does this conclusively exculpate the sun in climate variation (or for that matter facular UV-B)?
I really don’t have a horse in this race either way, but is it something that can be fully discounted? Now I understand that TSI (and its commensurate UV-B levels) hasn’t varied sufficiently to account alone for the warming trend of the past 100 years, but the TSI peak of the 1970’s & 1980’s might account for the apparent “hockey stickness” of the 1990’s.
From my POV this wouldn’t exculpate CO2 either, but would instead point to a more moderate view on GHG & AGW.