Hard lesson about solar realities for NOAA / NASA
Reposted here: October 30th, 2008
by Warwick Hughes
The real world sunspot data remaining quiet month after month are mocking the curved red predictions of NOAA and about to slide underneath. Time for a rethink I reckon NOAA !!
Here is my clearer chart showing the misfit between NOAA / NASA prediction and real-world data.
Regular readers might remember that we started posting articles drawing attention to contrasting predictions for Solar Cycle 24, way back on 16 December 2006. Scroll to the start of my solar threads.
Then in March 2007 I posted David Archibald’s pdf article, “The Past and Future of Climate”. Well worth another read now, I would like to see another version of David’s Fig 12 showing where we are now in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24.
Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Issued April 2007 from NOAA / NASA
NOTE from Anthony: We now appear to have a new cycle 24 spot, which you can see here:
See the most current MDI and magnetogram here
Volcanoes and climate from 1740, it would seem volcanoes did not cause the past cooling.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm
OT: I wondered if anybody here recognized this (apparently well-known) equation?
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Rob (09:00:49) :
Volcanoes and climate from 1740, it would seem volcanoes did not cause the past cooling.
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndVolcanoes.htm
From your link:
Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and longer periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about 0.5oC for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and low air temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Click here to see a list of volcanic eruptions.
Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth’s surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.
Volcanic dust blasted into the atmosphere causes temporary cooling. The amount of cooling depends on the amount of dust, The duration of the cooling depends on the size of the dust particles. Particles the size of sand grains usually fall out of the air in a matter of a few minutes and stay close to the volcano, and therefore have little effect on global climate.
Dust-size ash particles will float around in the lower atmosphere for hours or days, causing darkness and cooling directly beneath the ash cloud, but these particles are quickly washed out of the air by rain. However, dust reaching the dry upper atmosphere, the stratosphere, can remain for weeks or months before they settle back to the planet surface. These particles block sunlight and cause cooling over large areas.
Volcanoes that release large amounts of sulphur compounds like sulphur oxide or sulphur dioxide affect the climate more strongly than other volcanoes mainly ejecting dust. The sulphur compounds usually rise easily into the stratosphere. There they combine with water vapour to form a haze of tiny droplets of sulphuric acid. These tiny droplets are very light in colour and reflect a great deal of incoming sunlight. Although the sulphuric acid droplets eventually may grow large enough to fall to the earth, the stratosphere is so dry that this process usually takes months or even years. Consequently, reflective hazes of sulphur droplets can cause significant global cooling for 2-3 years after a major sulphur-bearing volcanic eruption.
Sulphur hazes are believed to have been the primary cause of the global cooling that occurred after the large Pinatubo (1991; see below) and the Laki (1783-1785) and Tambora eruptions (1815).
————
The cooling is a side issue. My interest in this is the effect that volcanoes have on the 10Be deposition and the confusion that causes with regard to solar activity influence on 10Be production.
Bill P (10:02:50) :
OT: I wondered if anybody here recognized this (apparently well-known) equation?
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Of course, it’s the Drake Equation.
Leif Svalgaard
Of course, it’s the Drake Equation.
Something new to me; much more about it at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The enigma of looking for (listening) life from other planets lies in the great time/distance scale of things. We’ve only been listening for some few decades when our civilization took some 10,000 yrs to get here. When I consider the energy consumed to produce the technology to be listening AND trying to ferret out meaningful signals, the amount of technologically supported time in our history tells me we won’t be doing this for very long.
It also hints that whomever else is out there likewise may not be transmitting long enough to get an overlap in the brief windows of simultaneous transmit/receive.
The sobering reality of the vastness of space comes crashing down around ones ears when computing a simple task as in how long will it take a conventional rocket (using slingshot of course) to reach the Centauri system (4.x light years). Ouch, 60,000 years really hurts. We are several orders of magnitude short of the journey speed rate at a time when Earth’s resources are seen as finite to support such endeavors.
Drake had to be dreaming to be thinking this stuff.
Where’s the reality?
We had better find life on Mars: There isn’t much else that we can be looking/listening for that has a snowball’s chance in hell considering the astornomical odds against us.
I have a better chance of winning the Lottery.
The odds are immeasurably better.
Oh heck, building a monster telescope mirror on the moon using epoxy and moon dust is infinitely more feasible than getting to Alpha/Beta Centauri.
Just need a couple of space jockeys in suits, epoxy, something to spin the wheel for the parabola, some silver coating stuff, poles to support camera, camera and transmit receive electronics. Piece of cakewalk. I’ll be looking forward to those fantastic drift scans.