I’ve mentioned this solar data on WUWT several times, it bears repeating again. Yesterday, NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center released their latest data and graph of the interplanetary geomagnetic index (Ap) which is a proxy for the activity of the solar dynamo. Here is the data provided by SWPC. Note the graph, which I’ve annotated below.
At a time when many predicted a ramp up in solar activity, the sun remains in a funk, spotless and quiet. The Ap value, for the second straight month, is “3”. The blue line showing the smoothed value, suggests the trend continues downward. To get an idea of how significant this is in our history, take a look at this data (graph produced by me) from Dr. Leif Svalgaard back to the 1930’s.
The step change in October 2005 is still visible and the value of 3.9 that occurred in April of this year is the lowest for the entire dataset at that time. I’m hoping Dr. Svalgaard will have updated data for us soon.
Click for a larger image
Why is this important? Well, if Svensmark is right, and Galactic Cosmic Rays modulated by the sun’s magnetic field make a change in cloud cover on Earth, increasing it during low solar magnetic activity, we are in for some colder times.
There’s a presentation by Jasper Kirkby, CLOUD Spokesperson, CERN, which shows what we currently know about the correlations between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR’s) and variations in the climate.
The CLOUD experiment uses a cloud chamber to study the theorized link between GCR’s and cloud formation in Earth’s atmosphere. Kirkby talks about the results from the first CLOUD experiment and the new CLOUD experiment and what it will deliver on the intrinsic connection between GCR’s and cloud formation. This is from the Cern, one of Europe’s most highly respected centers for scientific research.
Kirkby’s one hour video presentation is hosted here. It is well worth your time to view it.
h/t to Russ Steele
Sponsored IT training links:
Guaranteed success in SY0-201 exam with help of N10-004 practice test and up to date 70-640 exam dumps.
Leif –
“A reversal could put some of our ideas on how things work to the test.”
Things like, say, human civilization?
Pressed Rat (19:37:27) :
“A reversal could put some of our ideas on how things work to the test.”
Things like, say, human civilization?
No, nothing of that kind. I was referring to ideas about how geomagnetic activity, the size of the magnetosphere, the conductivity of the ionosphere, etc. Things that all depend on the strength of the Earth’s field. Also, reversals take a long time to happen – centuries or more – so there will be enough time to adapt.
Leif,
Many, many measurements since 1960 indicate that:
a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;
b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and
c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons [1-4].
Have you considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in the surface appearances of activity from a solar dynamo – actually a neutron star ?
1. “Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy”, J. Fusion Energy 19,(2001) 93-98.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf
2. “Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2002) 197-201.
http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
3. “On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars,” J. Fusion Energy 25 (2006) 107-114.
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
4. ” The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 847-1856.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (07:26:14) :
a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of hydrogen, but this lightest of all elements accumulates at the top of most stellar atmospheres;
As Hydrogen makes up some 75% of all baryonic matter in the universe it is hard for the Sun, NOT to be a ball of Hydrogen [with some 24% Helium and 1% ‘metals’ thrown in]
b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun; and
And was THAT star not a Hydrogen ball either?
c.) The Sun is heated by repulsive interactions between neutrons
Nonsense, we have a very good idea of the actual energy generation in great detail, and the neutrino production, and density/temperature profile are extremely well explained.
Have you considered how a compact, energetic solar core might produce changes in the surface appearances of activity from a solar dynamo
The Sun does, indeed, have a compact, energetic core, but there is no dynamo in the radiatively stable interior well below the convection zone.
I’m afraid your ideas are ‘not even wrong’ and have no support whatsoever. and therefore really do not belong on a ‘science blog’. We have been over this discussion before and nothing new has been added, except, perhaps that the neutrino data have become even firmer in support of the standard solar model.
REPLY: Baryonic matter?! How very barycentric of you. Three quarks for Mister Mark! I agree with Leif, take this stuff elsewhere.- Anthony
Wow!
Sorry that I intruded.
Thought that you might have considered the possibility of interactions between orbiting planets and a dense solar core energized by repulsive interactions between neutrons.
You probably doubt neutron repulsion?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Leif Svalgaard (19:18:03) :
“As Hydrogen makes up some 75% of all baryonic matter in the universe . . .”
You speak with great authority. [snip] measurements shown in overheads in Dubna, Russia at the FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON NON-ACCELERATOR NEW PHYSICS on 20 June 2005:
“The Sun Is A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Sorts Atoms By Mass”
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (04:21:27) :
“You speak with great authority. Indeed.
b.) The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun
How did the precursor star form?
Leif Svalgaard (04:48:40) :
1. Yes, indeed, “The Sun formed on the remnant neutron star that remained after the precursor star exploded 5 Gy ago and ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun”. That statement of fact is based on experimental data summarized in the overheads.
“The Sun Is A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Sorts Atoms By Mass”
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
No other explanation has been offered for the empirical link of primordial He with excess Xe-136 in diverse classes of meteorites and in Jupiter. AGW Cameron simply ignored the data in his model of a nearby supernova trigger for formation of the solar system.
2. “How did the precursor star form?”
I do not know. [A simple four word sentence – almost always truthful but unusually difficult for most of us to admit.]
I suspect (from the following observations) that the precursor star had a compact neutron core like the Sun and sorted atoms by mass because a “carrier” gas of H (a neutron decay product) moved upward from the core:
a.) The precursor star sorted atoms by mass, as the Sun does.
That was one of the observational puzzles of the 1970s: Why were isotopes mass fractionated in the elements inside meteorites that retained products of stellar nucleosynthesis reactions?
Nucleogenetic isotopic anomalies were first discovered in the nine stable isotopes of xenon [Nature 240 (1972) 99-101].
The measurements showed a combination of
a.) Fractionation by mass,
b.) Excess Xe-136 from rapid neutron capture (r-process of B2FH), and
c.) Excess Xe-124 from the p-process of B2FH – as shown in this figure:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data.htm
Measurements at the University of Chicago and Cal Tech confirmed the linkage of Fractionation and Unknown Nuclear (“FUN”) effects in the isotopes of other elements in meteorites in 1977 [Clayton R. N. and Mayeda T. (1977) “Correlated oxygen and magnesium isotopic anomalies in Allende inclusions: I. Oxygen”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 4, 295-298; Wasserburg, G. J., Lee, T., and Papanastassiou, D. A. (1977) “Correlated oxygen and magnesium isotopic anomalies in Allende inclusions: II. Magnesium”, Geophys. Res. Lett. 4, 299-302].
Many other measurements by many other investigators have confirmed the presence of combined “FUN” (Fraction and Unknown Nucleogenetic) isotopic anomalies in other elements that were initially trapped in meteorites as the Solar System formed directly from supernova debris:
http://www.omatumr.com/Origin.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (07:03:54) :
2. “How did the precursor star form?”
I do not know. [A simple four word sentence – almost always truthful but unusually difficult for most of us to admit.]
I suspect (from the following observations) that the precursor star had a compact neutron core like the Sun
This seems an infinite regress.
The newborn universe was 75% H and 25% He [with insignificant amounts of Li, b and Be]. All heavier elements [O, Si, Fe, U, etc] are built by well-understood nuclear synthesis. The heaviest stars explode as supernovae and so ‘enrich’ the interstellar medium by increasing amounts of ‘metals’. The increasing metal-content with age is directly measured in stars of different ages. The processes by which stars shine and explode and by which elements are formed are well-understood and there are no puzzles. As I said, your ideas are pseudo-science and nonsense and it does seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32) :
it does NOT seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.
Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32) :
“As I said, your ideas are pseudo-science and nonsense and it does seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.”
Should we understand the science is settled?
jbrodhead (08:33:21) :
Should we understand the science is settled?
On this issue, it is ‘settled’. This does not mean that there is not more to learn, but the science is settled the same way as it is settled on whether the Earth is flat or round, 6000 years or 4.6 Billions years old, whether atoms exists, etc.
Leif Svalgaard (08:38:24) :
“On this issue, it is ’settled’. This does not mean that there is not more to learn, but the science is settled the same way as it is settled on whether the Earth is flat or round, 6000 years or 4.6 Billions years old, whether atoms exists, etc.”
4.6B… determined by tree rings, sediment, or personal experience?
You believe there is order (as opposed to absolute chaos) to the laws of the physical universe – correct?
And the science is settled, provable – correct?
At what point has science been capable of proving that everything in the universe (energy, matter, time, etc…) became from nothing (absolute void)?
Are you not amazed by the the existance of life?
What about the existance of the environments on earth, which have held so many forms within a relatively tiny window of temperature, humidity, O2, CO2, all the minerals and nutrients necessary to support life, in virtually all ‘corners’ of the globe.
The immense number of coincedences required for one robust lifeform to have survived, let alone the millions of fragile lifeforms, make the odds of your (implied) Godless origin of the universe an insanely impossible prospect.
So we disagree. I believe my proof trumps yours, because I have, by faith, an answer to the existance of life, the universe and everything AND it’s not “42”.
jbrodhead (10:11:56) :
because I have, by faith, an answer to the existance of life, the universe and everything
Since FAITH is not science. faith-based religious views hardly belong in a ‘science blog’. I’ll just point out that other Faiths provide different answers to the faithful.
1. Quoting Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32) :
“The newborn universe was 75% H and 25% He [with insignificant amounts of Li, B and Be]. All heavier elements [O, Si, Fe, U, etc] are built by well-understood nuclear synthesis. The heaviest stars explode as supernovae and so ‘enrich’ the interstellar medium by increasing amounts of ‘metals’. The increasing metal-content with age is directly measured in stars of different ages. The processes by which stars shine and explode and by which elements are formed are well-understood and there are no puzzles. As I said, your ideas are pseudo-science and nonsense and it does seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.”
2. Quoting Leif Svalgaard (07:58:32):
“it does NOT seem reasonable to waste bandwidth [electronic as well as human] on such aberrations.”
Two of many sets of experimental data directly falsify Leif’s obsolete ideas from B2FH [Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957) 547-650]:
At the birth of the solar system, MEASUREMENTS show that:
1. Excess Xe-136 accompanied the primordial He in diverse meteorites and in Jupiter:
1a.) Meteorites: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
1b.) Jupiter [“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97 (1998) abstract 5011]
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
2. Molybdenum isotopes in iron meteorites display nucleogenetic isotopic anomalies because the iron came directly from the iron-rich region of the supernova that gave birth to the solar system.
2a.) University of Tokyo: http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm
[Qi-Lu, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tokyo, 1991]
2b.) Harvard [Nature 415 (2002) 881-883] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6874/abs/415881a.html
It is time to address the data, Leif.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Leif Svalgaard (10:40:51) :
“Since FAITH is not science. faith-based religious views hardly belong in a ’science blog’. I’ll just point out that other Faiths provide different answers to the faithful.”
Your settled opinion is that faith has no place in science, or at least in a ‘science’ blog, but many of those in HIStorical science, were so, because of their faith. Also, this is not only a ‘science’ blog, but a political blog… Unless Al Gore is a scientist and the Copenhagen fiasco is not about science, but global politics.
Science is not my religion, but I know through my faith that there is order in the universe, because it is the creation of God. Without an ordered universe, your science would be chaos (assuming the universe could or would exist.)
I do not dismiss the structure of the universe, but the theory of origin.
We are “discussing” your religion (science) and my beliefs of a created universe. You avoided the subject of the absolute improbability of existance, in a way which was as dismissive as when you responded to Oliver K. Manuel (07:03:54) :
As you demand science to be a stand-alone entity and you cannot show cause for the existance of the universe, you are showing the same creating a wall around science, an elitist society, to which we, the peons, may be exposed at your will/whim. Isn’t that what Climategate is all about?
I am not trying to muddy the waters (speaking of which, are you aware of the miraculous characteristics of H2O?), anyway… I believe you might be missing ‘data’, which is far more important than ice melting, or not…
My beliefs are not shrouded, except to the extent you so choose to accept.
If your purpose is to find the proof of fraud, go for it. I am fully convinced that political forces gave motivation to pollute, destroy, fabricate the data. My interests are for the preservation of the good things in this world. The true opposition is intent upon destruction of freedom and life.
Oliver K. Manuel (12:36:41) :
It is time to address the data, Leif.
There is no doubt that the Iron and all the other stuff [except the light elements] that make us up was formed in supernovae. It is just that that [those] explosions didn’t happen in the solar system. Ii is even likely that a supernova relatively close to the solar system [a few tens of light-years away, say], triggered the formation of the interstellar cloud that eventually became the Hydrogen/Helium sun with a sprinkling of ‘metals’ from that and previous explosions mixed in. Any anomalies [as compared to what, BTW] could easily be produced that way.
jbrodhead (10:11:56) : because I have, by faith,
Oliver K. Manuel (12:36:41) :
Perhaps a discussion by Manuel how the good Lord arranged for the supernova that sustains jbrodhead’s faith would be a interest…
Or rather: both of you, you might find more sympathetic ears for your opinions elsewhere.
Leif Svalgaard (13:05:30) :
No supernova sustains my faith.
As a father, whose child just recovered from a significant case of pneumonia, in about three days(!), I am grateful to God, for creating the persons who are drawn to science and develop medications such as antibiotics.
Having participated in the birth of our children and been interactive with their innately power ‘little’ minds, from birth to date… I find creation amazing.
I believe our little planet is a dynamic system with a purpose. The data which science craves and processes, continues to show the non-accidental nature of nature.
My hope for you, is that a question, such as “How did NOTHING create EVERYTHING?” will take root in your heart and hold you until you look UP in a different way.
[OK, can everyone stick to what can be proven? ~dbs, mod.]
Quoting Leif Svalgaard (12:57:38) :
“There is no doubt that the Iron and all the other stuff [except the light elements] that make us up was formed in supernovae. It is just that that [those] explosions didn’t happen in the solar system. Ii is even likely that a supernova relatively close to the solar system [a few tens of light-years away, say], triggered the formation of the interstellar cloud that eventually became the Hydrogen/Helium sun with a sprinkling of ‘metals’ from that and previous explosions mixed in. Any anomalies [as compared to what, BTW] could easily be produced that way.”
Address the data, Leif! A nearby supernova does not explain why:
1. Excess Xe-136 from rapid neutron capture accompanied ALL primordial Helium in meteorites and in giant gaseous planets like Jupiter !
“Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion”, Meteoritics, Planet Sci 33, A97, 5011 (1998).
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
2. Molybdenum isotopes made by different nuclear reactions were never mixed together and ejected into the interstellar medium before forming huge boulders of iron !
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm
3. The top of the solar atmosphere is covered with the lightest elements – Hydrogen and Helium – but the Sun itself is mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si, and S, just like Earth and ordinary meteorites.
“Solar abundance of elements from neutron-capture cross sections”, 1033, 36th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference (LPSC), Houston, Texas, March 14-18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0412502v1
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1033.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (14:45:20) :
A nearby supernova does not explain why
And why not? sounds very reasonable to me, combined with fractionation in the solar nebula [which took place – e.g. explains the decrease in density from Mercury to the out gas planets].
More to the point: we are usually loath to say that the Sun and the solar system are unique [hundreds of systems have already been observed]. So, you are suggesting [unless the sun is special somehow] that all systems form by a supernova and have [as you stated] a neutron core and contain very little hydrogen.
Your examples are proofs of nothing of the kind you claim.
jbrodhead (12:46:15) :
You avoided the subject of the absolute improbability of existence
I don’t think it is improbable, rather that it is inevitable, e.g. http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm or http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html
The total energy of the existing Universe is probably zero, and getting nothing from nothing is not such an improbability. And proper understanding of the Universe and physics in general is not elitist at all, anybody can obtain such knowledge [and cheaply].
That this blog is political and that politics and religion are bedfellows in this are probably gross misrepresentations, but I’ll let Anthony correct me here if I’m wrong. I don’t think this blog is a place to spout religion, no matter how strong the Faith is.
A nearby supernova? I hope not.
Hoyle, after he had chucked me off his team for being a big bang heretic, wrote a book about that which was probably fairly accurate in it’s descriptions of the effects.
Well at least as accurate as we can imagine. I forget the details.
Still at the time when the USSR threatened us in the UK with their SS20’s to deter the deployment of cruise missiles some left wing councils put up notices declaring they were nuclear free zones. The joke being that one had a nice fission reactor right in the middle of the zone.
However since the SS20’s were never launched I think we may learn a lesson.
What we really need is a very large notice saying ‘NO SUPERNOVAS PERMITTED HEREABOUTS.’ English readers of my age would add ‘PENALTY FIVE POUNDS’
Should do the trick I reckon.
Kindest Regards.
a jones (15:37:01) :
A nearby supernova? I hope not.
Long ago 🙂
Dr. Svalgaard
I missed your previous post perhaps because I was posting myself.
I could not disagree with you more strongly that total energy in this Universe approximates to zero. This is an argument which I have fought against all my life.
From a classical viewpoint this Universe is a naked singularity and therefore to exist must possess a unique identity in terms of energy, entropy and handedness. It is not and cannot be symmetrical.
The Elsewhere from which perhaps it came and of which we know nothing might well be symmetrical. But we could speculate that this universe is the result of some imbalance in that Elsewhere which produced the big bang: or indeed possibly and more likely two or any other even number of them. We simply don’t know: but I have hopes we may find out in time. If there is time enough.
I do not disagree, despite it’s arbitary nature, with Professor Hawkin’s Cosmic Law of Censorship: that is that Nature Abhors A Naked Singularity, at least as far as it applies inside this Universe. And indeed it has allowed us to show that black holes obey the second law of thermodynamics. We have other ways of showing that today.
No Sir. This Universe has energy, entropy and handedness.
Kindest Regards