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.
Whoops lost a G there. Finger trouble.
Kindest Regards.
Leif Svalgaard (13:05:30) :
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].
In US banking, creating a bubble (something out of nothing) is a sure way to create an implosion (nothing out of something.) They call it theft. But in the case of banks, the banks have something to be stolen and eventually the theives are caught and the something is returned.
I know a vacuum bubble can be created out of something (i.e. cavitation in fluid stream.) Now you propose creating energy and matter and dimensions out of nothing and that it is a simple matter (not such an improbability.) Are there not laws of thermodynamics at play? I know biologists attempt to step around those laws, but physists?
If, for argument sake, we live in a bubble, sucked, no blown, no… something’ed out of nothing, then our existence is futile; the eventuality is nothingness. Based on this: “why?” Why breathe, breed, work, think, try? What is your purpose?
Leif, I do not see where I indicated politics and religion are bedfellows. I believe I referred to science and politics. Climategate seems to be settled science… 🙂
I am not out to SAVE people. I am powerless to do so. I am studying, as best I can in short order, politics and enough science, to become better at defending my family and Nation from enemies domestic and foreign. I appreciate those things I am learning in both areas, here (thanks WUWT and all contributors). I am telling as many people as I can find, about this site. And, if occation allows, I attempt to bring my found tidbits, in hopes to contribute, news, humor, myself as best I can… If that is not of value here, so be it. I will attempt to quietly watch the chatter and discoveries, but will still send others to this site.
Let’s call off this ‘debate’, because of cold. Ok…
Quoting Leif Svalgaard (15:06:14) :
“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].”
The Sun is not unique, Leif.
The Sun is powered by repulsive interactions between neutrons in its core. The Sun discards Hydrogen as a waste product.
You have confused “smoke” with fuel for the solar engine.
Experimental DATA show that the Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen (H), but Hydrogen covers the the visible top of the atmospheres of most stars.
The surface of the Sun is 91% H. H is the lightest of all elements.
The surface of the Sun is 9% He. He is the next lightest element.
Measured abundances of isotopes in the solar wind and abundances of s-products in the photosphere independently show why:
The Sun sorts atoms by mass and selectively moves lightweight ones to the top of the Sun’s atmosphere [ http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0412502v1 ].
That’s not rocket science, Leif! That’s an experimental fact.
Each year the Sun produces and discards 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind. That too is an experimental fact.
Hydrogen is a waste product (neutron decay product) from the solar engine, not its primary fuel.
I invite you and others to join and participate in a discussion on evidence for repulsive interactions between neutrons.
Kirt Griffin formed and moderates a Yahoo Group on this subject, “Neutron Repulsion: An Alternative Energy,”
neutron_repulsion@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe, send an e-mail to
neutron_repulsion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
jbrodhead (16:35:12) :
Based on this: “why?” Why breathe, breed, work, think, try? What is your purpose?
You can create the purpose of your own existence by living it to the fullest.
Oliver K. Manuel (17:46:49) :
Each year the Sun […] discards 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind. That too is an experimental fact.
A characteristic of pseudo-science is the mixture of fact and fantasy .
The Sun is not unique
Let us hang on to this statement. So, are all other stars then like the Sun, in the sense that they are balls of Iron surrounding a neutron core [which by the way is not made of Iron] formed by a supernova in situ?
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (18:06:46) :
“A characteristic of pseudo-science is the mixture of fact and fantasy.”
On that point, you are clearly the authority
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (17:46:49) :
The Sun is not unique
Let us hang on to this statement. So, are all other stars then like the Sun, in the sense that they are balls of Iron surrounding a neutron core [which by the way is not made of Iron] formed by a supernova in situ?
Oliver K. Manuel (20:01:04) :
“A characteristic of pseudo-science is the mixture of fact and fantasy.”
On that point, you are clearly the authority
Yes, in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (20:25:14)
“So, are all other stars then like the Sun, in the sense that they are balls of Iron surrounding a neutron core [which by the way is not made of Iron] formed by a supernova in situ?”
Probably so. But the measurements cited above were made on the Sun
However, this manuscript [“Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source”, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197-201] shows that :
a.) Nuclear energy from neutron repulsion is greater than that from fusion.
b.) Nuclear energy from fusion is greater than that from fission.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf
All stars appear to have moved lightweight elements to the surface and to have discharged waste hydrogen (“smoke”) to interstellar space, but the Sun is the only star close enough for detailed measurements.
Why ask about other stars?
That may be a clever debate technique, but it is obviously a ploy to avoid addressing experimental data that show the Sun sorts atoms by mass [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856].
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (21:19:03) :
Why ask about other stars?
Because the current theory encompasses all stars, with the Sun fitting in nicely. [and there are no MEASUREMENTS of anything on the Sun other than its atmosphere. ]
So, all other stars must also have a neutron star at their center so every star must be born in a supernova explosion of a previous star that also had a neutron star left over from a supernova explosion from its previous star, which in turn had a neutron star created by a supernova explosion of its previous star that then also had a neutron star, etc … ad infinitum.
Quote Leif Svalgaard (21:27:40) :
“So, all other stars must also have a neutron star at their center . . .etc. … ad infinitum.”
Enough evasion! We don’t have data from “all other stars”, Leif, so . . .
Please, Leif, just address the experimental data that show the Sun sorts atoms by mass [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856].
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
OLiver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (08:56:21) :
Enough evasion! We don’t have data from “all other stars”, Leif, so Please, Leif, just address the experimental data that show the Sun sorts atoms by mass
The ‘sorting’ has nothing to do with whether there was a supernova or is a neutron star. So, you are the one that are evading
1) explaining how the ‘sorting’ implies a neutron star or/and supernova, and
2) explaining why the sun is different from 99.9% of all other stars.
Just citing the URL once more is, of course, not enough.
In your scheme, every star must have a neutron star at the center, since that is the source of stellar energy. Thus every star must have been a supernova. There is one supernova every 50 years in our Galaxy, so over the 10 billion years of the life of the Galaxy, there have been 200 million supernovas and thus 200 million neutron stars which is 1000 times smaller than the number of stars [200 billion], so 99.9% of stars have no neutron core and must be shining by the ordinary standard way of converting H to He. Right?
[snip]
Just address these two observation, Leif, one at a time:
1. Why are lightweight isotopes enriched in the solar wind?
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
2. Why are lightweight s-products enriched in the photosphere?
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2005Data.htm
Here is additional evidence that the Sun sorts atoms by mass and selectively moves lightweight ones like H and He to its surface:
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (17:58:00) :
Just address these two observation, Leif, one at a time
You probably know why already or at least have some hypotheses about why. But how does it follow from these that
1) the sun is a remnant of a supernova in the solar system
2) there is a neutron star at the core?
gravitational fractionation is a universal process that occurs everywhere: just try to pour some nails into a glass of water and watch the nails sink. So, the question is why that requires a supernova leaving a neutron star?
Stop avoiding experimental data, Leif.
Measurements show that:
1. Lightweight isotopes are enriched in the solar wind.
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
2. Lightweight s-products are enriched in the photosphere.
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2005Data.htm
Two totally independent measurements reveal mass fractionation in the Sun. Both measurements indicate that the bulk Sun is composed mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni and S – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets.
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
How do these data fit the standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (20:19:55) :
Two totally independent measurements reveal mass fractionation in the Sun.
The measurements relate to the outer atmosphere of the Sun and say nothing about the interior. If you think otherwise, explain how. Here.
The measurements were made on the SAME material commonly used to represent “solar” abundances of elements.
The measurements show that lightweight elements (like H and He) and the lightweight isotopes of each element (like Ne-20 and Xe-124) are enriched “the outer atmosphere of the Sun.”
See: “Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and xenon,”
Nature 227, 1113-1116 (1970); doi:10.1038/2271113a0
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v227/n5263/abs/2271113a0.html
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what those measurements mean for the material left inside the Sun!
As noted above, both measurements show that the bulk Sun, prior to mass fractionation, was composed mostly of Fe, O, Si, Ni and S – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets.
http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (23:03:20) :
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what those measurements mean for the material left inside the Sun!
If so, then you should have an easy job explaining why it follows that the bulk of the Sun is the not Hydrogen and Helium. So, explain here, why.
BTW, we have measurements of the sound speed inside the Sun [from helioseismology] and thus of the molecular weight showing that it is consistent with the standard H-He model.
Quote Leif Svalgaard (21:30:01) :
[i]The measurements relate to the outer atmosphere of the Sun and say nothing about the interior. If you think otherwise, explain how. Here.[/i]
That is explained in detail in the overheads and papers cited above:
1) http://www.omatumr.com/Overheads/Overheads.htm
2) http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
Again, the composition of the interior of the Sun is defined quantitatively by:
a.) The composition of the solar atmosphere (photosphere):
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig1.htm
b.) The mass fractionation measured across abundances of:
_1.) Isotopes in the solar wind (Measured from 3 to 136 atomic mass units), and
_2.) S-products in the photosphere (Measured 27 to 207 amu)
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig2.htm
Conclusions on the composition of the solar interior from:
_1.) Isotopes in the solar wind:
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig3.htm
_2.) S-products in the photosphere
http://www.omatumr.com/images/Fig4.htm
Both sets of INDEPENDENT MEASUREMENTS agree: The interior of the Sun is mostly Fe, O, Ni, Si and S – just like ordinary meteorites and rocky planets.
The probability (P) that this agreement is fortuitous is essentially zero,
P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002
See: O. Manuel and Stig Friberg, "Composition of the Solar Interior: Information from Isotope Ratios", Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Local and Global Helioseismology, Big Bear Lake, CA USA (Editor: Huguette Lacoste, ESA SP-517, Feb 2003) pp. 345-348
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Science
My reply – with a paper that Professor Stig Friberg and I presented at a SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology and published in the ESA Proceedings- is pending moderation.
The fact that “the sound speed inside the Sun” . . . “is consistent with the standard H-He model”, or strawberry jello, or chocolate pudding, etc., is useless verbiage.
My good friend and mentor, an astrophysicist named Dr. Carl Rouse, published several papers showing that helioseismology measurements support the concept of an iron-rich solar interior
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Carl_Rouse_desc.htm
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (19:40:03) :
“The measurements relate to the outer atmosphere of the Sun and say nothing about the interior. If you think otherwise, explain how. Here.”
That is explained in detail in the overheads and papers cited above
Those contain no explanation whatsoever, just unsubstantiated statements. It is a measure of your understanding of something that you can EXPLAIN in simple language how a process works. You references contain no such explanations. E.g. to state that “magnetic fields brings H to the surface” is no explanation at all.
So, show your understanding of the process and provide an explanation. Here in this blog.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (02:01:01) :
“Those contain no explanation whatsoever, just unsubstantiated statements.”
Nonsense! Those experimental data were collected over the past five decades (1960-2010).
E.g., these Ne isotope data that I collected in the laboratory of the late Professor John H. Reynolds in the Physics Department at UC-Berkeley in 1964:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1964Data.htm
The data were presented before large audiences of nuclear, space, and solar scientists at international gatherings in the United States, the old USSR, Canada, (Dubna) Russia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Japan, India, Finland, Ireland, etc.
The data were submitted together with explanations that you foolishly call “unsubstantiated statements” for publication after review by PhD scientists in chemistry, physics, geology, nuclear and space studies.
By 1980, experimental measurements on Ne isotopes in planets, the Moon, and various classes of meteorites had shown, for example, values of
Ne-20/Ne-22 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc.=
Simple mass-dependent fractionation explained ALL of these observations [O.K. Manuel and D.D. Sabu , “The Neon Alphabet Game”, Proceedings of the 11th Lunar Planet Sci. Conf, Vol. 15, Number 2 (1980) pages 879-899]
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Neon_alphabet_game.pdf
Go ahead, Leif, its your turn to address the data!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Oliver K. Manuel (04:34:42) :
Those experimental data were collected over the past five decades (1960-2010).
There is nothing wrong with the data. It is just your interpretation and conclusions drawn from them that are completely off the mark and make no sense whatsoever. You consistently evade explaining anything.
Quote: Leif Svalgaard (06:27:26) :
“There is nothing wrong with the data. It is just your interpretation and conclusions drawn from them that are completely off the mark and make no sense whatsoever.”
Great evasion trick there, Leif. You “forgot” to tell us how you would explain the data.
Ignore experimental data and pretend that the interior of the Sun is 91% H and 9% He like its surface, Leif, but the Sun will not change to match the obsolete dogma of a Hydrogen-filled Sun.
What is, is.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Wow.
“fight-fight-fight” … I expect this schoolyard cry will be snipped