The last time we saw would could have been a cycle 24 sunspot, was on January 20th, 2009, but it was an oddball, and not clearly part of cycle 23 or 24. Spaceweather.com wrote that day:
A new sunspot [1011] is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24. Stay tuned for updates as the sunspot grows.
The last time we had a true cycle 24 spot was on January 10th thru the 13th, with sunspot 1010, which had both the correct polarity and a high latitude characteristic of a cycle 24 spot. But since then no other cycle 24 spots have emerged.
It has been slow going for cycle 24.
We did have a single cycle 23 spot in February as you can see from the SWPC sunspots data, but it has been dead quiet on all other solar activity indices:
:Product: Daily Solar Data DSD.txt :Issued: 0225 UT 22 Feb 2009 # # Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center # Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov # # Last 30 Days Daily Solar Data # # Sunspot Stanford GOES10 # Radio SESC Area Solar X-Ray ------ Flares ------ # Flux Sunspot 10E-6 New Mean Bkgd X-Ray Optical # Date 10.7cm Number Hemis. Regions Field Flux C M X S 1 2 3 #--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009 01 23 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 24 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 25 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 26 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 27 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 28 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 29 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 30 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 31 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 01 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 02 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 03 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 04 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 05 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 06 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 07 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 08 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 09 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 10 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 11 70 11 10 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 12 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 13 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 14 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 15 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 16 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 17 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 18 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 19 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 20 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 21 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Geoff Sharp (00:35:27) :
If we look at that 11000 yr record its made up of lots of peaks and troughs and a power curve. The peaks and troughs and power curve line up with the angular momentum graph. All of the solar downturns except one line up with N/U conjunctions every 172 yrs avg for 6000 yrs so far. My work needs to go further, and would do so if I can get some background data on the 11000 yr14C graph, I have emailed Usoskin, but no reply yet.
I have tracked down the 11000 data (Solanki), so I can make a start….surprised someone in the know didnt inform me, wasnt hard to find in the end.
Leif,
Take a few minutes to view the links below.
That video (really a simulation) appeared on the NASA website….and now you can see in on YouTube.
Here is a link you may have not seen:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
So again that simluation:
At the same time (even though this animation showing the onset of the SSW antedates the supposed event Jan 21, something caused the SSW to amplify around around that same time:
(Unfortunately the following animation only backdates to 30 days so we are past January 21st…but one can see the SSW at its peak. And it shows now
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml
WHAT DOES NOT JIVE is from the same CPC site is a HUGE warm deviation from normal from the 200mb levels on up in the northern hemisphere over the pole which began exactly at the time of the “blast” and continues until this day….only recently showing signs of cooling returning.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
Here is another different recording of whatever it was (gamma ray burst?) that came from that magnetar at around the same time. Listen to the recording.
http://maestro.haarp.alaska.edu/cgi-bin/scmag/disp-scmag.cgi?date=20090121&Bx=on
QUESTION 1: Did this pulse or blast or whatever it is have a direct impact on at least AMPLIFYING the HISTORIC SSW event that just occurred?
QUESTION 2: During times of extraordinarily low solar activity, does the Earth become more vulnerable to cosmic bombardments like the one? Or is it all just a coincidence?
QUESTION 3: Some scientists have linked the huge gamma ray blast of 1998 to the Super El Nino that occurred during the same. Does the sun’s huge magnetosphere help protect the solar system (and thus Earth) from outside cosmic bombardment? And currently, are the shields of the “Death Star” down (a little Star Wars allusion) with the sleeping sun?
Some scientists have correlated the huge gamma ray blast that occurred in 1998
Anybody want to take a stab at this??
savethesharks (09:47:25) :
Here is another different recording of whatever it was (gamma ray burst?) that came from that magnetar at around the same time. Listen to the recording.
What magnetar?
At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.
savethesharks (09:47:25) :
Take a few minutes to view the links below.
The video shows the blast to come straight from the Sun [to the left] and hit the Earth head on. That would place the magnetar behind the Sun, and no rays would reach us. The ‘blast’ should have come from the direction of the part of the sky where the source was, and most likely hits us from the side rather than precisely from where the Sun was.
Lief said: At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.
HUH?
What you say here runs contrary to readily available knowledge about the protective role of the magnetosphere. And I don’t personally know your Uncle Ernie…
“The magnetosphere, which protects the Earth from the effects of solar wind. The sun, in reality much further away, is to the left of the figure. It constantly emits a flow of particles, the solar wind, which runs into the Earth’s magnetic field. The geometry of the very structurally complex magnetosphere is altered by major solar flares. In certain cases, the magnetic field of the solar wind combines with that of the magnetosphere at point 1. The Earth’s magnetic field is then disturbed and particles stored in the plasma layer create the aurora borealis and australis. Whatever the circumstances, with the opening of the earth’s magnetic field at the poles, the ionised particles, whether produced by solar flares or GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION, penetrate more easily at higher altitudes.”
…From Pour La Science, June 2001
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136462,00.html
http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/contenu_rayonnement.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3866
And many others…..
savethesharks (15:47:16) :
Leif said: “At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.”
HUH?
The solar wind is a steam of charged particles. Gamma rays are just [very] shortwave light. Does the magnetosphere protect us from sunlight? or moonlight? or starlight? or magnetar light?
savethesharks (15:47:16) :
Leif said: “At any rate, magnetic fields [Sun’s or Earth’s or Uncle Ernie’s (sleeps with a magnetic bracelet)] do not protect or screen or do anything to gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation.”
HUH?
The solar wind is a steam of charged particles. Gamma rays are just [very] shortwave light. Does the magnetosphere protect us from sunlight? or moonlight? or starlight? or magnetar light?
savethesharks (15:47:16) :
HUH?
GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION
The cosmic radiation is a misnomer stemming back to 1912 when it was discovered. People then didn’t know that it is not radiation at all, but particles.
This is actually getting fun…
Hey Leif,
Are you always this cantakerous…or does the snoozing sun got ya down?
[snip]
This is the one that apparently hit us in January…..30,000 light years away….
Please take a look at this link:
http://news.skymania.com/2009/02/scopes-watch-stellar-firecracker.html
And this article….
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010300/a010366/index.html
savethesharks (20:55:30) :
And this article….
Mow for the so many a times: the gamma rays are not charged particles that can be stopped by the Sun’s or the Earth’s magnetic field, and the cosmic rays are not radiation, but charged particles, and do not come from magnetars.
savethesharks (20:55:30) :
There is a proverb in modern greek:
” come granddad, let me show you which are your vineyards” .
It is not shameful not to be educated in matters scientific, not even if it is in matters in other fields than the one has studied and worked in.
What is dubious is to assume the mantle of “know all” and try to invent the wheel.
The fact that electromagnetic radiation, x-rays, gamma rays, shortwave and longwave radiation and visible light are not affected in their passage through a magnetic field in the way charged particles are is a scientific trivia truth. Almost on par with conservation laws. Include in the list neutral non electromagnetic cosmic input like neutrinos and neutrons. Magnetic fields affect only the charged component of “cosmic rays”.
Well I am glad you you are the authority on that given that there is a plethora of scientific convention that says to the contrary.
Please demonstrate….without a shadow of a doubt…your foregoing outrageous cut-and-dry assumptions.
{ANYBODY WATCHING THIS???]
So then…what are gamma ray bursts? Are you saying they are science fiction?
Your deductive style is very continually distasteful and (pardon me for quoting myself again and again): it weakens your platform.
Let’s go a step further: It weakens your research.
Reply: I don’t know who were talking to, but I suggest you adjust your style to a more constructive style of discourse or you posts will either be edited or deleted ~ charles the moderator
savethesharks (22:28:58) :
So then…what are gamma ray bursts?
A gamma ray burst is a strong, sudden [that is what a burst is] influx of gamma rays. Gamma rays are very short wave light, are not charged particles, and are not influenced or stopped or deflected by magnetic fields [from the Sun, the Earth, or any other source].
So what was it that occurred Jan 21?
And this….
http://news.skymania.com/2009/02/scopes-watch-stellar-firecracker.html
And how to explain the historic SSW that occurred at the same time on Jan 21 and as seen in this diagram?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
savethesharks (23:07:24) :
So what was it that occurred Jan 21?
Many things occurred on Jan 21 [my neighbor’s car had a flat tire]. People like to make things out of coincidences. Write up your ideas and submit them for publication somewhere, so they are not lost for posterity.
“Many things occurred on Jan 21 [my neighbor’s car had a flat tire]’
Don’t you dare leave us now, Lief.
Your commonsense, rationality, logic and humor add a vital balance to some of the more “interesting” theories on this blog.
savethesharks (22:28:58) :
Here is an educational outlet if you are interested in what type of particles exist and how they interact with each other, what type of fields exist and how they interact with particles. This is supporting material for teachers in high school.
http://education.web.cern.ch/education/Chapter2/Teaching/PP.html
I can see where the confusion comes from. in
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/cosmic_rays.html
they define cosmic rays as always charged.
In my time with cosmic rays, back in the 1960s we called anything that hit the spark chamber from the cosmos, a cosmic ray.
Whereas here, they call them gamma cosmic rays
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/history_gamma.html
and the “cosmic” epithet confuses.
If you want something definitive about electromagnetic radiation and its interaction with fields you have to take an electromagnetism course.
Thanks, Anna. Will check those out.
Anyone care to address directly these two events below, as to what caused the first one,
And it came from this site:
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/index.html
And is there is any possible causation that the above event amplified the epic Sudden Stratospheric Warming as shown on this chart? The amount of red is unsettling….though it is finally, after over a month, of extreme deviations above normal, is finally showing signs of cooling.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/hgt.shtml
Or is this feature malfunctioning? I have tried to get an answer from CPC so far but to no avail.
The 10mb animation began to show cooling weeks ago.
What gives and why the lag?
And does the extraordinarily low solar activity subject Earth to more “bombardment” of particles and whatever this thing was?
The above correlations, though if they at all verify, at least in part….are at least worth pondering.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA