Solar Cycle 24 has ended according to NASA. Yes you read that right. Somebody at NASA can’t even figure out which solar cycle they are talking about. Or, as commenters to the thread have pointed out, perhaps they see that cycle 24 has been skipped. We’ll be watching this one to see the outcome. – Anthony
Michael Ronanye writes in comments:
NASA has just changed the name of the project from Solar Cycle 23 to Solar Cycle 24. I would love to have attended that meeting.
B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 24
Clarified March 10, 2009: All references to “Solar Cycle 23″ have been updated to “Solar Cycle 24.” Reference in Section 1 to “Solar Cycle 22″ has been updated to “Solar Cycle 23.”
See the changed text here:
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
Talk about Freudian Slips, what Solar Cycle is it anyway? No wonder they can’t make predications!
But it gets even better. NASA has just declared that Solar Cycle 24 is over. Read the first paragraph in the above PDF:
1. Scope of Program
In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment.
Obviously someone made an error when editing the text of the original document and did not catch their mistake. Quick, make your own backup copy of this “Great Moment in Science”.
mark hobart (14:56:00) :
We know the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 4cm per year. This is an observed fact which I do not question. However, as I understand it, we do not know how or when the moon formed or appeared in orbit about earth.
You did not answer my question. But I will assume that the answer is ‘yes’. If not, we back up a bit. Because of the tide there is friction and the Earth is slowed down by the tide. Agree?
My question again. “Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago?”
We’ll come to this in due time.
As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.
Thank you once again.
mark hobart (14:56:00) :
“We know the moon is moving away from the Earth at about 4cm per year. This is an observed fact which I do not question. However, as I understand it, we do not know how or when the moon formed or appeared in orbit about earth.”
You did not answer my question. But I will assume that the answer is ‘yes’. If not, we back up a bit. Because of the tide there is friction and the Earth is slowed down by the tide. Agree?
If so, [otherwise we back up a bit], as we go back in time, the Moon was 4 cm closer per year and the Earth was rotating faster. As the Moon was closer in the past, the tides were bigger and the friction larger, so the slow-down of the Earth and the speed-up of the Moon [because of conserved angular momentum] and hence the rate at which it moves away would be bigger. Agree?
If so, [otherwise we back up a bit], as we go further back in time the Moon was more than 4 cm closer per year. At the 4-cm/year rate the distance to the Earth [386400 km] is covered in 10 billion years, but as the rate was higher in the past it is easy to calculate that it only takes about 4 billion years for the Moon to be on top of the Earth, agree so far?
The Apollo astronauts brought moon rocks back. We can date rocks accurately and they are indeed 4 billion years old. So the moon was MUCH closer to the Earth, billions of years ago. Agree?
If so, there you have your evidence, that you yourself have concluded.
As you are a solar scientist I would be particularly interested in you answer regarding the sun.
If you agreed so far, we can on to the Sun, but let us first get some feedback as how far you actually agree…
Leif,
If the moon is closer than a certain distance to the earth (there is a name for this distance, which I’m sorry, I can’t remember) It is broken up by the earth’s gravity, like Saturn’s rings. This would argue against your theory would it not? Also I think there are some who would disagree with your calculations and put the adjacency of the moon to earth closer to 1 billion years. (The rate of increase is proportional to the inverse of the 6th power of the distance)
However this is all speculation and it seems the the only hard data is the gradual movement of the moon away from the earth, unless you have anything else.
Thanks again.
Mark Hobart (18:17:54) :
If the moon is closer than a certain distance to the earth (there is a name for this distance, which I’m sorry, I can’t remember) It is broken up by the earth’s gravity, like Saturn’s rings. This would argue against your theory would it not?
It is called the Roche distance and it is very close to the Earth [just like Saturn’s rings are to Saturn]. And the Moon was in fact broken into many, many pieces, as was probably the Earth as well, both completely shattered by an impact of a Mars-sized planet. Eventually the Moon [and the Earth reassembled – outside of the Roche distance]. What ever you think of the theory there seems to be general agreement that the Moon was MUCH closer billions of years ago as I said.
For the Sun, the situation is, of course different. We can today directly see sun-like stars form and measure their rotation rate [which is much faster than that of old Sol] and magnetic fields, so we know that they have a MUCH stronger stellar wind and magnetic field. As I already explained, a strong and magnetic solar wind is the only thing that can slow the Sun’s rotation, so we know that the sun had such a wind and field.
Now, there much be a reason [or an agenda] why you are so skeptical [and hence ignorant] of this. Care to tell us what it is?
Leif,
Let’s get back to my original question.
“Could you please give me evidence that the sun was much more active billions of years ago and that the moon was much closer billions of years ago.
Thank you in anticipation.”
Your answers:
1. Moon: “What ever you think of the theory there seems to be general agreement that the Moon was MUCH closer billions of years ago as I said.”
2. Sun: ” We can today directly see sun-like stars form and measure their rotation rate [which is much faster than that of old Sol] and magnetic fields, so we know that they have a MUCH stronger stellar wind and magnetic field”
Is that all the evidence you have in answer to my question?
I don’t want to seem disrespectful but I was hoping for something more tangible than mere speculation
To answer your last question, I am after the truth. And, just because someone says they are a “scientist” and therefore should be respected is not enough for me. There are many examples of bigoted scientsts refusing to question their dogma which hides under the guise of “science”. I question everything and so should you.
mark hobart (20:22:43) :
Is that all the evidence you have in answer to my question?
I don’t want to seem disrespectful but I was hoping for something more tangible than mere speculation
Well, I have done what I could. You decide to remain in the dark and so shall it be.
Leif, I thank you for your help. It was not wasted.
Anthony
Please don’t ban “skeptic” for having different views from most on your blog. If you do you will be no different from Gavin Schmidt and cronies at RealClimate. I’ve been banned from that blog as I criticised the unseemly way all there reject anyone that suggests and anything that indicates, the science underpinnng AGW may very well not be settled. This blog is, naturally, akin to my own views which are that there is a hell of a lot of stuff clearly suggesting AGW is a dodgy concept, stuff that the AGW proponents don’t analyse rationally but just dimiss abitrarily. Skeptic seems a definite AGW believer but he/she should be able to argue their side without fear or favour.
Hey Leif,
I know I’m late to yet another wall of text, but in case you are reading this you’re to be commended for your continued patience in educating the public on solar science.
Were I in your shoes I’d disclaim with a tag line: “It’s not TSI, it’s not UV and any solar effect has years of cumulative lag. If we’re going to research the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nuclei, please don’t expect instant correlations. And anybody who mentions solar-planetary barycenters will be ignominiously plonked.”
Cheers! — leebert