Sun blasts a CME, the question though: will we see a Cycle 24 spot?

Listen.. quasi- Laymen researcher here.. watch for Tectonic actividty as result of Cme.. I have been tracking trend.. and feed back greatly appreciated

We had a CME earlier this month.
It had no visual effect and no sunspots were detected.
Let’s wait and see.

A question perhaps for Lief?
Considering that during an active solar cycle the TSI is measurably increased (excluding other real energy loss such as x-rays etc. and other unknowns) and that the internal nuclear engine of the sun (considering its size and internal pressures) is fairly constant) it is clear that during a period of active solar cycles the sun is actually losing energy in its upper layers? Similar to the warm/cold ocean cycles we see here on our planet.
Is it perhaps the case that this is enough to induce the period of reduced activity as we are now witnessing and in the observed cycles that have occurred before? Would this heat/energy loss not cause a slight contraction of the solar plasma on the surface and therefore the solar diameter and has been or is this measureable?
I know that the reduction is only in the very small percentage band but over an extended period and condidering the solar mass the actual energy loss involved must be huge and the period of time to replace and reheat the upper layers equally large. If this is so it could , because of the contraction, couse a pressure wave to extend to the core kicking off a heightened nuclear output that would then be manifest, say in a few thousand years as a new cycle and so infinitum untill of course the whole shebang explodes in the later stages. Pressures waves as you know can overlap and transect. Makes sense to me anyhow.

Ron de Haan (05:04:43) :
Thanks for the link. I now see that the reference is to Miskolczi’s paper of a couple of years ago. The video says it has not been falsified but actually there have been a number of challenges to it – so I think he would need to deal with those first before we could confidently say he had disproved AGW in my humble opinion.

Does the CME become a sun spot or are sunspots just mini CME’s? I don’t know much about the physics of the sun and I was wondering if its entirely two different types of events that are going on. As far as I know a CME is greated from a huges difference in polarity. This blog always talks about SC23 and SC24 having to be different polarities and my assumption is that CME’s create sunspots. Am I wrong here?(FYI, fairly new to the site)

How can we tax the sun for such a shameless waste of energy?
Al Gore could sell it some offset credits.

Could those two “active” area be the same ones that we say about a week or two ago?

“The increased TSI does not come from the core, and by radiating the Sun is not ‘losing’ energy [which would happen, if energy generation in the core stopped]. The energy radiated is just a reflection of the energy generated, and they are in balance [for the moment – the next several billion years at least].
The solar cycle variation of TSI is due to surface processes related to variations of the magnetic field.”
Thanks Lief and I understand what you are saying and understand that the core outputs at a constant as I metioned. However could not the temporary increased loss of energy at the surface which must be considerable in total have an influence on the solar process? My intuition tells me it must, even if minicule — which is what we see.

Bulletin: All the major climate datasets now confirm that we are in a global cooling trend and numerous scientists are predicting that it could last for decades. NASA and the NOAA, among other prominent organizations, all recognize this cooling trend. It is important to note that the climate is cooling while CO2 levels continue to increase. This, once again, disproves the correlation of CO2 levels to warming. CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming and never has as paleo-climate records show (see detail below).
This is why the 31,000 scientists who signed the Protest Petition stated that CO2 emissions are not damaging the environment but to the contrary are benefiting all life immensely. Earth greened by a further 6.17% over the 1982-1999 period (increased plant growth) due to increased levels of CO2, which is the food of all life.
Below is a protest against carbon/CO2 cap and trade or tax proposals. This summary is being sent to politicians, media outlets, scientists, and others across the world. It is a protest against the madness of anti-carbon thought and policies.
The Basic Science of Carbon/CO2: a brief summary
(Why are we trying to limit- cap and trade, tax- the basis of all life?)
All life is built from carbon. All life depends on carbon for its existence and functioning.
“All living things, starting at the cellular level which is common to all life, is based on carbon compounds, including the DNA that carry the gene sequences of the genetic codes. Of the trillions of cells in the human body, there is not one of them that is not made of carbon” (see article by Bob Brinsmead- The Vindication of Carbon- at http://www.bobbrinsmead.com). We subsist almost entirely on carbon dioxide. “The food used by all living things, to grow and to live, is carbon dioxide…food is carbon dioxide…the food of all plants and animals is carbon dioxide” (http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/greening_benefits/ ). Everything is made of carbon and fueled by carbon. All things need carbon to grow and reproduce.
There is only one source of carbon for all life- CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (“they consume almost entirely carbon dioxide for food”- http://www.bydesign.com) and process it into carbohydrates for the animal kingdom. We get our food from this chain of CO2/carbon processing.
“The only gateway through which carbon can enter the food chain to enable the biosphere to exist is through the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no other way. It all starts with CO2 in the atmosphere. The entire chain of life starts with plants absorbing this entirely natural, colorless, odorless, absolutely non-toxic aerial gas called CO2…more than 90 % of the dry matter of plants is simply processed CO2. Whether it is a cow eating grass or humans eating cows, all are eating- and being fuelled- by processed CO2” (Brinsmead, The Vindication of Carbon).
Recent levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been unprecedented and dangerously low. Plant growth shuts down between 50-200 ppm (parts per million in the atmosphere). Plant life is stressed and unhealthy at such low levels. Life evolved over the past 500 million years at levels of CO2 that were on average a more healthy 1500 ppm (see paleo-climate graphs at sites such as Geocraft.com). A dangerous upper limit of CO2 in the atmosphere would be from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm (http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html). Other sources argue that CO2 levels are not dangerous till 15,000 or higher (see research papers on CO2 at co2science.org). We are in no danger of approaching these high levels. Our atmosphere is currently “CO2 impoverished”.
Plants and crops are healthier at higher levels of CO2 than are currently present in our atmosphere (now 386 ppm). They produce significantly more biomass, and are able to cope better with such natural vagaries as drought, heat, and cold (http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/the-wonderful-benefits-of-co2/ ). “More CO2 makes plants more resistant to extreme weather conditions…and this expands the habitat of many plants…and enhances agricultural productivity…and helps tropical rainforests” (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html ). Animals also survive better with more plant life. The small increase in CO2 over the past century has significantly greened the earth and this has increased populations in the animal kingdom. It has also enhanced the impacts of the Green Revolution with notably increased crop production which has helped to feed the poor.
Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are more normal and natural.
Current world average temperatures are also abnormally low. Higher temperatures on an ice-free earth (a warmer earth) are more normal and natural (see paleo-climate graphs at Geocraft.com). We are in one of earth’s infrequent and abnormally cold ice-age eras (the past two million years). A warmer earth would be better for all life.
A recent SPPI (Science and Public Policy Institute) paper by Christopher Moncton notes that today’s temperatures are well below those of the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods. They are 5 degrees F. below temps over the past 10,000 years, 10 degrees F. below temps of each of the past four inter-glacials, and 12.5 degrees F. below median global temperature (surface) over the past 600 million years. Warmer periods with higher CO2 have benefited all life. This is the normal and natural condition for life. Not this abnormally cold and CO2 impoverished situation of the current ice age era.
CO2 is not a pollutant but is a rare gas (1 molecule to every 3,000 molecules of the atmosphere) that is the essential food of all life. “All plants and animals are growing and living on a rare gas” (www.bydesign.com). And while there are other potential pollutants associated with fossil fuel use, CO2 and carbon are not among them.
CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming. Rising levels of CO2 follow warming periods and do not precede or cause warming periods. See the Vostok Ice Core research at http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php . Oceans, which hold 90 times the CO2 that is in the atmosphere, release CO2 as they warm and this increases atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increases tend to lag behind warming periods by about 800 years.
CO2 is a tiny part of the greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect ( http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html ). The warming effect of CO2 gets lost among other much larger natural climate drivers. Human emissions of CO2 are even tinier (1 part per 100,000 parts of the atmosphere) and a human fingerprint causing warming is even more lost among natural influences. The human contribution to climate warming, if it were statistically detectable, would amount to nothing more than “a fart in a hurricane”. Natural climate drivers with strong, clear correlations to warming/cooling periods include cosmic rays (see Henrik Svensmark’s The Chilling Stars), solar flare cycles, related cloud cover, ocean current decadal oscillations (changing current patterns), earth’s 100,000 year wobble, and others.
CO2 levels have been as high as 7,000 ppm in the past and no dangerous global warming occurred. During the Late Ordovician Period (some 400 million years ago) CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm and Earth was as cold as it is now. Note also that Earth has been cooling since 2002 despite the fact that CO2 emissions have been increasing. “There is no valid correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming”, concludes geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch.
Therefore, there is no valid scientific reason for us to worry about contributing to increasing CO2 levels. We do not need to reduce our carbon footprint. We do not need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere or decarbonize our economies. As the 31,000 plus scientists who signed the Protest Petition have stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth” ( http://www.petitionproject.org/ ).
To demonize carbon/CO2, as environmentalists have done, is to demonize life itself. This is ridiculous hysteria and entirely unscientific. The only way to fully understand this anti-carbon movement is to recognize that it is ideologically-driven extremism now gone utterly mad. Its real goal is to slow, halt, and even reverse economic growth and development and it uses carbon as a proxy to fight growth and the human enterprise. But the Green movement in demonizing carbon has become anti-green, anti-life, and anti-nature.
Wendell Krossa wkrossa@shaw.ca