I got a tip by email from JohnA who runs solarscience.auditblogs.com about this NASA press release. John’s skeptical about it. He makes some good points in this post here.
What I most agree with JohnA’s post is about sunspots. While we’ve seen some small rumblings that the solar dynamo might be on the upswing, such as watching Leif’s plot of the 10.7 CM solar radio flux, there just doesn’t appear to be much change in character of the sunspots during the last year. And the magnetic field strength just doesn’t seem to be ramping up much.
He writes:
“Let’s check out the window”
On Solarcycle24.com they’ve got yet another sun speck recorded yesterday, that by today had disappeared. Exactly the same behaviour we’ve been having for 12 months with no end in sight.
I agree with JohnA, it’s still a bit slow out there. Leif is at the conference in Boulder where NASA made this announcement below, so perhaps he’ll fill us in on the details.
Here is the NASA story:
Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?
June 17, 2009: The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.
At an American Astronomical Society press conference today in Boulder, Colorado, researchers announced that a jet stream deep inside the sun is migrating slower than usual through the star’s interior, giving rise to the current lack of sunspots.
Rachel Howe and Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, used a technique called helioseismology to detect and track the jet stream down to depths of 7,000 km below the surface of the sun. The sun generates new jet streams near its poles every 11 years, they explained to a room full of reporters and fellow scientists. The streams migrate slowly from the poles to the equator and when a jet stream reaches the critical latitude of 22 degrees, new-cycle sunspots begin to appear.
Above: A helioseismic map of the solar interior. Tilted red-yellow bands trace solar jet streams. Black contours denote sunspot activity. When the jet streams reach a critical latitude around 22 degrees, sunspot activity intensifies. [larger image] [more graphics]
Howe and Hill found that the stream associated with the next solar cycle has moved sluggishly, taking three years to cover a 10 degree range in latitude compared to only two years for the previous solar cycle.
The jet stream is now, finally, reaching the critical latitude, heralding a return of solar activity in the months and years ahead.
“It is exciting to see”, says Hill, “that just as this sluggish stream reaches the usual active latitude of 22 degrees, a year late, we finally begin to see new groups of sunspots emerging.”
he current solar minimum has been so long and deep, it prompted some scientists to speculate that the sun might enter a long period with no sunspot activity at all, akin to the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century. This new result dispells those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating, and the sunspot cycle is not “broken.”
Because it flows beneath the surface of the sun, the jet stream is not directly visible. Hill and Howe tracked its hidden motions via helioseismology. Shifting masses inside the sun send pressure waves rippling through the stellar interior. So-called “p modes” (p for pressure) bounce around the interior and cause the sun to ring like an enormous bell. By studying the vibrations of the sun’s surface, it is possible to figure out what is happening inside. Similar techniques are used by geologists to map the interior of our planet.
In this case, researchers combined data from GONG and SOHO. GONG, short for “Global Oscillation Network Group,” is an NSO-led network of telescopes that measures solar vibrations from various locations around Earth. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, makes similar measurements from Earth orbit.
“This is an important discovery,” says Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “It shows how flows inside the sun are tied to the creation of sunspots and how jet streams can affect the timing of the solar cycle.”
There is, however, much more to learn.
“We still don’t understand exactly how jet streams trigger sunspot production,” says Pesnell. “Nor do we fully understand how the jet streams themselves are generated.”
To solve these mysteries, and others, NASA plans to launch the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) later this year. SDO is equipped with sophisticated helioseismology sensors that will allow it to probe the solar interior better than ever before.
Right: An artist’s concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory. [more]
“The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on SDO will improve our understanding of these jet streams and other internal flows by providing full disk images at ever-increasing depths in the sun,” says Pesnell.
Continued tracking and study of solar jet streams could help researchers do something unprecedented–accurately predict the unfolding of future solar cycles. Stay tuned for that!
kuhnkat (20:00:33) :
The historic record should NOT be contaminated with apples and rocks.
Yes, I agree 100%. I, the layman, should not have to go mucking about, digging and scratching at old records & new records, being a pest for links to
data I cannot find by googling, resorting to consortiums of amatuer astronomers and reading reams of papers just to try & piece back together the puzzle of increased resolution counting and kludged measuring.
The people who are the keeper of the official records should have seen this coming decades ago and cleared the roadblock for rush hour.
Don’t have the time?
Fine.
Give me the grant $$$. I’ll take that job.
Frank Hill (15:40:00) :
Thanks for your post. Please, please, please post again. A lot of us just want to learn. Sometimes we may not like the message…. but anyone who thinks an exchange between Lief Svalgaard and David Archibald on this site is boring belongs on Joe Romm’s site.
kuhnkat (20:00:33) :
Jim Hughes
“Or that the limb proximity of Region 1021 is bad now so the sunspot might not be gone, just unable to be seen. When does it end ?”
The sunspot is unable to be seen?? And how are we supposed to compare UNSEEN sunspots to the historical record??? We need a CONSTANT RECORD THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THE HISTORIC RECORD if it is to have consistent usefulness!!!!
There MAY have been unseen sunspots in the past. Now that we are able to “see” and measure these “unseen” sunspots there should be a parallel record of them. The historic record should NOT be contaminated with apples and rocks.
Not if the excess of brightness of faculae and spicula overweighs the lowered degree of sunspots’ luminosity. In this case, the sunspot would be “invisible” to the human eye, which would be a very important problem for computing sunspots in historic times.
It might be time to come up with our method of counting sunspots so we can have a contiguous record. It wouldnt be too hard, we just need to agree on what not to count (by pixel size and duration) and then go back over the SC24 record at solarcycle24 and re calibrate.
Its time for the Layman to take control.
>>>What I want to avoid is impoverishing the lives of my children
>>>because of the hysteria over a minor constituent of the atmosphere.
And cost us money it will. Here is the UK government imploring councils yesterday to spend lots of our hard-earned cash because the UK is going to be 6 degrees warmer by 2080, and our farmers will be growing bananas (apparently).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8107014.stm
Since we have witnessed a decade-long global cooling since 1998, I’m not sure how the UK Environment Secretary (and his advisors) suddenly decide that it is going to get 6 degrees warmer.
Yes, these observations and the associated science are very important to our economic future, which is why we don’t need scientists like Mr Hill jumping on the “my theory explains everything, give me more funding” bandwagon. Comments like “This new result dispells those concerns. The sun’s internal magnetic dynamo is still operating” (based upon limited data) are hype, not science.
Ralph
I think the problem that science has got at the moment is we do not yet have a good enough understanding of the mechanisms which drive our sun or planetary climates.
My view is that our understanding could be improved if the whole sun/planetary system could be studied as a whole, rather than expertise being focused so much on specific elements. Often the ‘big picture’ view can give us better insight as to what is happening than the detail.
Regarding current climate predictions I think the oscillating 200 year climate cycle could be right – time to buy the thermals I think…
1410-1500 cold (Sporer minimum)
1510-1600 warm
1610-1700 cold (Maunder minimum)
1710-1800 warm
1810-1900 cold (Dalton minimum)
1910-2000 warm
2010-2100 (cold???)
Frank Hill (15:40:00) :
Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.
As you say, three cycles in what is a turbulent if not chaotic phenomenon are not enough, and you seem to be doing the best you can with the available data.
The desire of the scientists convinced that CO2 is a minor player in whatever warming there is ( see the thermostat thread here) to find a PR mechanism equally imagination grabbing as floodings and dying polar bears leads some to the behavior of the sun.
You use the term “climate change”, which for the cognoscenti means that you believe in CO2 global warming. Have you spent the time to read up on the physics behind the claim? I, as a physicist, have, and am convinced that there is very little in the tale except outputs of badly conceived and materialized computer programs.
I think as you are careful that the sun is not high jacked for the PR of global cooling you should be equally careful that it is not used for PR of global warming either.
Climate change is a tautology a scientist should not be adopting. A scientist should know that by nature’s construction the climate always changes.
By the way, Silicon lasts “on fire” only one day. That’s the future of our yellow dwarf star. Sometimes I’ve thought if the Sun is not going in the opposite way, that is, if instead going on towards being a white dwarf, it is actually running towards being a giant. Nah!
Frank Hill,
Thanx for your participation and explanation. I do think the reference to the maunder minimum was a bit of a strawman for you to reference. I’ve seen a lot more speculation about the possibility of a Dalton minimum, which is what is suggested by a spin orbit coupling with Jupiter.
It is time for solar physicists to ask for some help evaluating the gravitational impact of the solar mass heterogeneity and spin and the planets from a general relativity perspective. The simple newtonian and first principle reasoning with which spin orbit coupling has been dismissed won’t hold up. They don’t apply to extended spinning bodies. The solar quadrapole moment on the order of 10^^-6 may be significant to the phenomena of interest here, especially if dynamics end of concentrating the effects in the outer 2% of the solar mass, or even more in the fraction of that mass represented by the jet streams. You will find dozens of GR papers on spin orbit coupling, the quadrapole moment of extended bodies, frame dragging of spinning bodies, and mass “currents” that can generate gravitational waves. The tidal forces of of Venus and Jupiter are more than twice that of mercury (and earth), and we know how measurable the GR effects are on the orbit of mercury. Spin orbit coupling, mass quadrapole moments and frame dragging are MAINSTREAM in GR.
The GR effects are not easy to analyze, and most of the published literature is related to black hole and neutron star type phenomena, but also to effects on gyroscopes in earth and solar orbits that are in “free fall” just like our Sun in its orbit. A 4m/s change in a 2000m/s flow impacting the outer 2% of solar mass, is already a phenomena on the order of 4 x 10^^-5. If it turns out shallow effects concentrated in less mass (or enhanced by magnetic fields) are significant to the part of the solar dynamo relevant to variation in solar activity, then GR effects of the solar spin, and mass heterogeneity and planetary tidal effects can’t be ruled out yet.
The analysis of even the simplified coupling of the Jovian monopole “mass current” to the solar quadrapole moment, spin and internal mass currents hasn’t been done, and won’t be easy. Perhaps the appropriate GR experts can come up with a parameterized approximation of the forces involved that you can use in your solar dynamo models.
Geoff Sharp (23:45:07) :
It might be time to come up with our method of counting sunspots so we can have a contiguous record. It wouldnt be too hard, we just need to agree on what not to count (by pixel size and duration) and then go back over the SC24 record at solarcycle24 and re calibrate.
Its time for the Layman to take control.
At least the record at this point should be easier to go through than if we wait a few years
kuhnkat (20:00:33) :
The sunspot is unable to be seen?? And how are we supposed to compare UNSEEN sunspots to the historical record??? We need a CONSTANT RECORD THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THE HISTORIC RECORD if it is to have consistent usefulness!!!!
There MAY have been unseen sunspots in the past. Now that we are able to “see” and measure these “unseen” sunspots there should be a parallel record of them. The historic record should NOT be contaminated with apples and rocks.
Kuhnkat,
It was nothing more than a light touch of sarcasm. And if you read my prior response you would know that I’m not the one trying to change anything. Because I’m content with everything. From the obvious quieter sun to even the way it is being measured.
Anaconda (17:10:38) :
@ur momisugly George Varros (12:51:56) :
Think electrical.
Where did your ideas originate from: ” A few years back, I did some garage experiments with helium and flyback transformers and was able to inflate field lines away from a persistent electrical arc and sustain them occasionally by allowing just the right amount of gas to flow, to allow a portion of the electrical arc to bubble out.”
My interests in plasmas such as a toroidal shaped plasma were spawned when I was lucky to visually see loads of sprites and jets in Aug 1997, when a bow echo unleashed a spectacular outbreak of the events. The Gods were at war. It was incredible. It was the jets that really captured my imagination as the most intense ones visually appear to be blueish donuts or bagels or smoke rings. The blue starters were a nice twisted double helix shape. From there, I simply did research into what a toriodal shaped plasma could be and I quickly found that the concept of a spheromak seems be what I observed. And, these blue jet like events — trumpet shaped and with a smoke ring looking front or leading edge, are blasted off the sun and they appear to be ‘identical’ in looks to blue jets. They were fleeting but to the discriminating eye, easily visible.
I was schooled in electronics and have been reading several pubs for 30 years and combining all kinds of bits together, came to the conclusion that lightning associated with hail has the possibility to set up a situation that is similar to a magnetized coaxial plasma gun. At the time, I needed to solve the riddle of the e-field strength versus dielectric breakdown strength which were about an order of magnitude off so rejection of the paper was prudent, I did not have the background to be able to do the research; cosmic rays are most likely the answer, by laying down the original stepped leader so that the mega-discharge can occur. I was able to record one sprite on ASA 400 emulsion based film using a Pentax Spotmatic camera. I didn’t get any jets but tried.
“[T}ransformers” are electrical. An “electrical arc” is obviously electrical. Here on Earth no one disputes a magnetic field is only derived by an electric current. The transformer likely modulated the electric arc (electric current) causing the magnetic field to change in shape in response to the change in current density of the electric arc. The helium possibly ionized in the presence of the electric arc forming a plasma that in turn modulated the magnetic field and the electric arc. A “plasma current” is a current of charged particles (electrons and ions). Electrons which have ordered movement are defined as an electric current, which will generate a magnetic field.
You are probably spot on. The results were a spark that now looked like a mountain peak versus a direct line from the transformer lead to the ground lead. From a top view. this mountain peak appeard to be thin but had a 45 degree twist to it. The more helium injected into the region the higher the peak went and the more the twist. But there was a point where I could not increase the height and twist and that was probably caused by the voltage and current limitations of the flyback. I could never get the plasma to loop up like the loops on the sun and therefore could not get the “omega” shaped effect I was trying to achieve but felt I was really close. And my conclusion was that what I was messing with was actually how the sun sort of unleashed these toroids that look like the blue jets.
I want to commend your experimental work.
And I commend your effort at trying to publish your ideas in a peer-reviewed journal, that takes a lot of work and perseverance.
Well thanks! However, be a skeptic, I am not a papered physicist or tokamak operator. I had a gentleman at NASA, a Mr. Otha Vaughan, urge me to submit based on the ideas I’d come up with. He was part of the Mesoscale Lightning Experiment. He was very inspirational, someone I will never forget.
Do you know about plasmoids?
I guess I understand the concept to some degree maybe. During the Aug 1997 sprite/jet event, I saw and photo’d a few events that seemed to be stationary balls of light that gleamed for a second or so. I guess they were somewhat irridescent in appearance. They looked like the star Sirius for an instant and would then wink out. These may have been what is described as a plasmoid that crushes down to a point before disappearing. Maybe conceptually similar to ball lightning but really short lived. I was not able to correlate them to lightning events, my mind’s eye was overloaded. They show up on a few of the photos shot during the event.
What is the relationship, if any, between a spheromak and a plasmoid?
I guess if a spheromak or toriodal shaped plasma has just the right field strengths, it could crush down into a little plasmiod; If they could get all the parameters correct in the lab, they maybe could create a small short lived star like object (without fusion). The donut shaped blue jets and some CMEs tend to expand versus crush down. I guess their properties are such that the plasma pressure exceeds the toroidal and poloidal field strengths and they are moving through a medium more dense than a vacuum.
I think if you compare a plasmoid and a spheromak, you’ll find they are similar. In fact, plasmoids also can take a toroidal shape.
Well, their aspect ratios are different. I think the plasmoid has greater field strength to plasma pressure. I am good at speculating and getting it wrong so beware. But, getting it wrong is one of the best ways I’ve found to ultimately get it right.
africangenesis (03:15:45) :
It would be courteous to support with at least a link the claim:
Spin orbit coupling, mass quadrapole moments and frame dragging are MAINSTREAM in GR.
Frank Hill (15:40:00)
One of the key qualities of the scientific process is to question everything, probe for deficiencies and discuss alternative interpretations. Another key aspect is the ability to reject incorrect conclusions especially when you yourself make them.
Thank you for your post.
Absolutely agree with both expressed sentiments.
I would add that ‘keeping alive’ incorrect conclusions may be a useful signpost for a path leading nowhere, to many others not to waste their time and energy, retracing the road to oblivion.
M. Simon (16:08:51) :
For ‘misguided’ minority ….Wouldn’t that be Maxwell, J. C.?
Not at all, no conflict there, as far as I understood ‘dreaded’ Maxwell equations (occasionally, some decades later, still subject of my bad dreams).
Nasif Nahle (17:07:58) :
Helium lasts “burning” for about 500 thousand years. After Helium, the stages of burning” continue in sequence: Carbon, Neon and Silicon.
I was referring to the experiments at JET the Culham Science Centre, Oxfordshire, UK.
http://www.jet.efda.org/
Anaconda (18:39:22) :
Your characterization of the Sun being electrical in nature is correct based on the evidence I have seen.
That not necessarily mean that I am correct. For time being let us just call it ‘inspired guess work’.
Mark T (20:06:58) :
Clearly I am confused. Are you being facetious?
You mean ‘ironic’; a failure in any field of life (including science) is always easier to accept if you do not take yourself too seriously.
kuhnkat (20:08:13) :
The reference you provide is to an artificial, externally forced, field. How does this compare to Nebulae or Jets seen by astronomers where there is no external containment equipment????
To be honest, no idea. I suppose possibly gravity as well as ‘current induced’ magnetic forces may provide containment. In plasma turbulent transport of energy is not necessarily diffusive. See this reference:
http://solarmuri.ssl.berkeley.edu/~hhudson/cartoons/thetoons/Tan-Huang_cartoon.jpg
A cartoon drawing attention to the perceived similarities between a Tokamak and a solar flare.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A%26A…453..321T
Finally: There is no particular dispute that electric currents do exist in the solar plasma. The crucial question is: are they a cause or the consequence of the major solar events.
Quote from Dr. L. Svalgaard: The point is that there are lots of currents, but they are all effects of plasma movements distorting the magnetic field and causing a breakdown or change of the configuration. The currents are not the cause of the changes, but are a consequence.
I am of the opinion, even if electric currents are a consequence, they do create or distort existing plasma carried magnetic fields, and therefore must contribute to the overall solar behaviour.
See work by P. M. Bellan from Caltech, presented at: Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, October 29-30, 2007 .
http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1892/1/BELpop03.pdf
anna v,
“It would be courteous to support with at least a link the claim:
Spin orbit coupling, mass quadrapole moments and frame dragging are MAINSTREAM in GR.”
Your point is well taken.
This link gives and example of the types of returns you get from searching for “extended body” in the GR section of the arxiv archive:
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/abs:+AND+extended+body/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=50&query_id=626243dd0a09bfeb
Some papers I found tidbits enough in to bookmark were:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0612/0612036.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0405/0405058v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0511/0511061v3.pdf
Some other papers:
http://sophie.pireaux.neuf.fr/public_html/page_web_perso_boulot/proc/dynamical_estimate.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909054v2.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6672/full/392155a0.html
http://edoc.mpg.de/335128
I recall finding this google search productive:
“quadrupole moment” symmetry gravitation
In the interest of full disclosure, I was looking for pubs on this a week ago, and then dropped it, then recently quickly bookmarked what I had open, because I needed to reboot. This process may have been a little indescriminate. Apologies.
Geoff Sharp (18:03:57) :
This is not science….you have been challenged by myself and Ian Wilson to present your findings properly including the data and to also have it peer reviewed. You have declined. So nothing is falsified and you are being misleading to all in here and others that read your website.
Allow me to respectfully disagree 100% with your statement, which have been countered many times now (ref. the solarcycle24.com discussion forum for all the details).
When you are the proponent of the theory you have to provide the evidence to support that theory. Please do.
Sorry, I messed up the quotes. My reply begins with “Allow me to respectfully ….”
anna v (04:26:33) :
africangenesis (03:15:45) :
It would be courteous to support with at least a link the claim:
Spin orbit coupling, mass quadrapole moments and frame dragging are MAINSTREAM in GR.
Tajmar and De Matos are doing some experiments that may be along this line. Quite interesting too. This Google search might help. ??
tajmar de matos Spin orbit coupling, mass quadrupole moments and frame dragging
We need to get a large electronic billboard right off the Beltway in DC or right next to the Capitol with a “The Sun Now” image. A short note at the bottom screaming “No Sunspots Today!” would be a nice touch. Maybe that would get Congress’ attention…
Hi everybody –
Frank Hill again here. Thanks for all of the comments once again, it’s great that we can have a good discussion. Here’s my opinion on a few points that were raised.
Kim – the idea that the perturbations of the gravitational field caused by the planets affect the solar dynamo has been studied on and off since the mid 1970s. It is attractive primarily due to the fact that the orbital period of Jupiter is close to the average period of the solar cycle, and that certain resonances in the solar system have about the same period as other more subtle cycles in solar activity. Now, the combined gravitational acceleration of all of the planets on the sun is much smaller than the forces that exist due to magnetic fields and mass motions that occur in the sun. So, at best, the influence of the planets on the sun is tiny as you point out. Generally, dynamo theory involves numerically solving a set of equations that are highly complex. Due to limitations of computer power, decisions must be made as to what effects to include in the calculations. This is done by calculating the relative strength of the complete set of possible effects, including perturbations in the gravitational field. At this time, the gravitational effects are below the threshold for inclusion. As time goes by and computer power grows, I expect that the gravitational effects will be included and then we will be able to answer the question.
MattN – as I pointed out, the TO is NOT the “great conveyor belt”.
JohnA – as I pointed out, the prediction is NOT that the sunspots should be here today, but that they should be starting to appear soon, say in the next few months. So the prediction has not yet been falsified. I would wait for about 3-6 months to say for sure. I am quite willing to say that my prediction is wrong if it is shown to be so. You also must be willing to say that you can be wrong. In addition, at this point there is NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT SUNSPOT ACTIVITY PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN DETERMINING CLIMATE ON EARTH. Sorry to shout but there is a hundred years of literature on the subject, which basically shows short-term correlations that disappear after a few solar cycles, along with a lack of plausible physical mechanisms that could link sunspots to climate. The irradiance variations of 0.1% are too small to cause thermal changes that can affect our climate.
MC – I guess I do not get your point. The sun is clearly a variable star. However, that does not mean that the sunspot cycle affects our climate. See above.
Philincalifornia – The scientific process is one of continual self-correction, which means that certainty can take a long time to emerge. It is important to get things right, and I think that many people expect science to instantly come up with a consistent “correct” answer. It does not happen that way.
James A. Donald – THE SUN IS NOT DEVIATING FROM NORMAL BEHAVIOR. If we have learned anything from the past two hundred years of observing the sunspot cycle, it is that the cycle is highly variable. In fact, cycle 23 looks a lot like cycle 4 back in the 18th century. The fact that the TO for cycle 24 has been present since 2003 is a clear indication that it is coming. And, I do not work for NASA. Sorry if this does not fit into your world view.
Anna v – I have read some of the literature on CO2-caused global warming, but I am certainly not an expert. I personally am not sure what the overall cause is, but I am impressed by the observation of Casper Amman that the warming seems to be coming from the bottom and not from the top of the atmosphere. That seems to indicate that either the sea surface is somehow warming, or that human activity is playing a role. Also, the tight correlation between the rise in global temperatures and the advent of the industrial age is striking (but correlation does not prove causation). What area of physics do you work in?
Africangenesis – see my response to Kim above.
Vukcevic – In my opinion, null (wrong) results are the most useful in science since they allow us to abandon fruitless paths and more efficiently pursue other alternatives.
Thanks all!
africangenesis (04:56:34) :
Thanks for the links.
From http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0006/0006075v2.pdf,
which I saw as relevant in one of your lists,:
“Gravitational Effects of Rotating Bodies,
Abstract:
We study two type effects of gravitational field on mechanical gyroscopes
(i.e. rotating extended bodies). The first depends on special relativity
and equivalence principle. The second is related to the coupling (i.e.
a new force) between the spins of mechanical gyroscopes, which would violate
the equivalent principle. In order to give a theoretical prediction
to the second we suggest a spin-spin coupling model for two mechanical
gyroscopes. An upper limit on the coupling strength is then determined
by using the observed perihelion precession of the planet’s orbits in solar
system. We also give predictions violating the equivalence principle for
free-fall gyroscopes .”
note: limits are given .
To get a spin orbit effect you need much more than limits.
That gravitational theorists are intrigued by pushing observable limits is good, to say that these studies would be useful in demonstrating a spin orbit effect that affects climate is another story.
It is like me saying, ( I am a particle physicist btw, retired) that it is all due to black mass and energy which is due to the other 7 dimensions of string theory with their unseen forces and particles. Actually any correlations of climate with planetary motions is another proof of black matter and energy.
Pure @ur momisugly#$%? speculation? No?
George Varros (05:29:10) : , thanks for the input. I was not aware of the experiment:
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
still it is still a very tentative possibility, that has not been confirmed by other experiments and which seemingly is retracted in : http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
.To reach into climate predictions and on top the effect of planetary motions on such mechanisms if they exist in the sun is a leap of more than faith at the moment, in my opinion.
Nevertheless, if despite what “classical solar theory” tells us we do enter a Dalton minimum with plummeting temperatures that cannot be explained away by a PDO etc classic atmospheric physics, a mechanism must exist for amplifying the tiny energy changes from the sun. It will have to be found in one of the more or less bizarre conjectures of the present or maybe by a more bizarre future one :).
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (05:25:04) :
Sorry, I messed up the quotes. My reply begins with “Allow me to respectfully ….”
Its time to put up or shut up.
Nasif:
“Not if the excess of brightness of faculae and spicula overweighs the lowered degree of sunspots’ luminosity.”
Mr. Bateman has indicated faculae are an order of magnitude lower than the 1910 era. IMHO, more important than discussions of spots, not to imply spotmania.
kuhnkat (20:00:33) :
Geoff Sharp (23:45:07) :
MattB (03:30:35) :
Yes, before things get too far out of hand.
The image below is my best attempt so far to quantify the issue:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/f_ssn2008-9a.JPG
The subspots are portrayed separately.
Contrast that with the latest Solar Terrestrial Activity Reports.
I don’t want the record full of rocks, grit & other foreign material.
It’s really painful to watch resolution increase as quantification falls into the stone age by those claiming advancement. Where’s the pride in the work? Nobody I ever worked for would accept anything less than perfection, so why should I?
There are other ways to express the problem, I’m working on it.
Frank Hll (06:52:18) : (brave man, coming back! But thanks for doing so!)
A question you may be able to answer (I have searched the net – honest)
The TSI measuring devices never seem to state the range over which they absorb radiation – e.g. is it DC to light; just optical (there is no mention of the absorbing material, just a “specular black cavity surface” and “light trap”).
There is a whole website devoted to ACRIM but having searched I did not find an answer.
http://acrim.jpl.nasa.gov/acrim/acrim_history.html
Or are the frequencies it does not measure totally insignificant.
Thanks