Amateur telescope photographer Thierry Legault has gained renown in recent years taking photographs of spacecraft in orbit… from the ground, with them either reflecting sunlight as they cross the terminator, or silhouetted by the moon, or in recent days, silhouetted by a near spotless sun.
His most recent accomplishment is this solar silhouette of the International Space Station docked with Space Shuttle Atlantis on its STS-132 mission. While many have marvelled at his accomplishment, we’ve heard less about the continuing near-spotless state of the sun in his photograph. This one sunspot region counted enough on May 22nd to make the daily sunspot count be 15!
It appears that the sunspot and 10.7 progression for Solar Cycle 24 have hit a bit of a roadblock in recent months, according to NOAA’s Solar Cycle Progression and Prediction Center.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif: But these normal ranges will be completely scattered and average out.
Your argument that they’ll be fully scattered depends on the particles having to make round-trips around the galaxy, because of their too-low energies (according to you). Recent research shows that such long trips aren’t necessary, since supernovae can accelerate the particles to GCR energies without the need for long trips.
Red herring. As we discussing the Maunder Minimum time scale.
Yes but it’s your red herring, Leif. You’re the one that said “If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and [..] is the variation of the galactic flux”. No-one else raised this point.
Koutsoyiannic Kakaphone coulda been a contenduh. I maintain I get my money’s worth in the lottery tickets, but not because of the odds; because of the entertainment value. I can spend many happy hours trying to figure out how to keep all that wealth from corrupting me.
====================
oneuniverse says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:44 am
Recent research shows that such long trips aren’t necessary, since supernovae can accelerate the particles to GCR energies without the need for long trips.
But the ‘normal’ energy particles cannot make it to us without being scattered and averaged out. An excellent review of the topic [ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0701/0701517v1.pdf ]states
“3.5 Anisotropy
High isotropy is a distinctive quality of Galactic CR observed at the Earth. The
global leakage of CR from the Galaxy and the contribution of individual sources
lead to anisotropy but the trajectories of energetic charged particles are highly
tangled by regular and stochastic interstellar magnetic fields which isotropize
the CR angular distribution. This makes difficult or even impossible the direct
association of detected CR particles with their sources, except for the highest
energy particles. Observations give the amplitude of the first angular harmonic
of anisotropy at the level of δ ∼ 10−3 in the energy range 10^12 to 10^14 eV where
the most reliable data are available, see (138; 139) and Fig. 12. The angular
distribution of particles at lower energies is significantly modulated by the so-
lar wind. The statistics at higher energies are not good enough yet but the
measurements indicate the anisotropy amplitude at a level of a few percent at
10^16 − 10^18 eV. The data of the Super-Kamiokande-I detector (140) allowed ac-
curate two-dimensional mapping of CR anisotropy at 10^13 eV (see also the Tibet
Air Shower Array results (138)). After correction for atmospheric effects, the
deviation from the isotropic event rate is 0.1% with a statistical significance of
>5σ and direction to maximum excess at roughly α = 75◦, δ = −5◦.”
So, for the cosmic rays of interest [energy less than 10^11 eV], the isotropy is exquisite.
Leif. You’re the one that said “If we assume for the sake of the argument that the dominant cause of variation of GCRs at Earth and [..] is the variation of the galactic flux”.
For the recent past. As I emphasized repeatedly.
kim says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:52 am
entertainment value.
There is also entertainment value in the pseudo-science, ‘could-be’ science, armchair conclusions, and wild speculations often seen on the ‘#1 science blog’, and that is fine as long as we know it ain’t true, but just entertainment, like ‘TV-wrestling’ and ‘reading the National Enquirer’.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 11:20 am
I ‘could’ win the lottery, but I never seem to do
Yes, you could, if you bought a ticket…the right ticket.
Now, this sounds more like fate to me.
My problem is that I have the luck of the Irish.
I once asked my grandfather if he thought it would be better if we had been around in the 49’er days, so we could get lots of gold.
His reply was “We’d be dead now, and we couldn’t get any gold”.
So, all of us are here today, and up there is a Sun that is having quite the time of it.
I want to call this ‘spot’ Cyclops.
Thanks Leif. Nearby supernovae will affect the flux, even if their lower energy particles take more random walks in their journey to Earth. How random are these walks, though?
From the paper: at low energies solar modulation is so large that the interstellar fluxes are really unknown
How much of the directional scrambling is due to the solar magnetic field, compared to the effect of interstellar magnetic fields? What would be the anisotropy measured by an observer outside (but near) the heliopause, beyond the range of solar influence? I guess we’ll maybe know in 5-10 years when Voyager reaches the heliopause.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am
“Perhaps with Ceres alignments added in [as per Ulric] you get even better correlation………………………………………………………………………………………………”
As it works historically with regularity, and I have already made very good forecasts based on this observation, the next sensible step is address the question it presents, as to its nature.
rbateman says:
July 3, 2010 at 7:51 pm
I want to call this ‘spot’ Cyclops.
I would say it is a ‘perfect’ theoretical sunspot.
http://www3.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~schliche/index-Dateien/showspot.png
oneuniverse says:
July 4, 2010 at 5:28 am
Thanks Leif. Nearby supernovae will affect the flux, even if their lower energy particles take more random walks in their journey to Earth. How random are these walks, though?
There aren’t any ‘nearby’ supernovae. The Galaxy is big. We see the integrated effect of thousands of supernovae over millions of years. From the incredible isotropy, we can deduce that the scattering is very random, indeed.
From the paper: at low energies solar modulation is so large that the interstellar fluxes are really unknown
These low energy cosmic rays have no impact on Svensmark’s hypothesis. But in general, the interstellar flux is unknown. The best thing we can do is the model and calculate what it should be to match our observations, e.g. by Voyager. This is what Webber and Higbie did.
How much of the directional scrambling is due to the solar magnetic field, compared to the effect of interstellar magnetic fields?
At 10^12 eV the isotropy was perfect to within o.1%. At that high energy, there is no solar modulation,
What would be the anisotropy measured by an observer outside (but near) the heliopause, beyond the range of solar influence?
For high energy GCRs the anisotropy is very small [less than 1 in a 1000]. For lower energies it will be smaller yet.
There aren’t any ‘nearby’ supernovae
Elykin and Wolfendale 2006 use the phrase, as did you earlier in this thread, so I think I can use it too.
Me: How much of the directional scrambling is due to the solar magnetic field, compared to the effect of interstellar magnetic fields?
Leif: At 10^12 eV the isotropy was perfect to within o.1%. At that high energy, there is no solar modulation
This is as measured near the Earth, and doesn’t answer the question. E&W, however, do provide a possible answer : “We have shown that if the bulk of the Cosmic Radiation is produced by shocks from SN explosions [which is the current understanding], the observed characteristics of their anisotropy are the product of local phenomena.”
Me: What would be the anisotropy measured by an observer outside (but near) the heliopause, beyond the range of solar influence?
Leif: For high energy GCRs the anisotropy is very small [less than 1 in a 1000]. For lower energies it will be smaller yet.
That figure is as measured on the Earth (by the Super-Kamiokande-I detector, corrected for atmospheric effects), not outside the heliopause.
In general, though, the deflection by magnetic fields may increase the path length of arriving CRs , but an increase in the production rate (supernova activity) will increase local CR density.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:42 am
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/venus-earth-jupiter-alignment-and-the-solar-cycle/
Perhaps with Ceres alignments added in [as per Ulrich] you get even better correlation. there are many thousands of minor planets out there. Perhaps you could search for [and pick] some that improve the correlation even more. With enough planets and judicious picking one should be able to achieve almost perfect correlation.
Good idea Leif. Then with some diligent working out of relative magnitude of effects, and working out why some solar system bodies are ‘in tune with the sunspot vibes’ and some not, we might get better clues as to mechanism. Thanks for your sarcastic advice.
oneuniverse says:
July 4, 2010 at 8:56 am
That figure is as measured on the Earth (by the Super-Kamiokande-I detector, corrected for atmospheric effects), not outside the heliopause.
The high-energy GCR are not influenced by the heliosphere.
In general, though, the deflection by magnetic fields may increase the path length of arriving CRs , but an increase in the production rate (supernova activity) will increase local CR density.
There is no evidence for an increase of supernovae production. In general with time [billions of years] there will be fewer and fewer supernovae.
It is possible to put numbers on the path length etc. As a high energy particle traverses interstellar space it may hit other particles, e.g. an Iron nucleus and produce debris that continue as ‘new’ GCRs. This is the ‘spallation’ process and has as a result that the elemental composition of GCRs when observed is different from when produced. Careful analysis of this shows that a ‘normal’ GCR has traversed about 8 gram of matter per square centimeter between production and observation. Knowing the average density of the interstellar medium then gives you the path length. A different method relies on radioactive nuclei also produced by spallation [e.g. 14C, 26Al, 54Mn, and our old fried 10Be – by the same process by which is it generated in the Earth’s atmosphere]. Since these decay with time, the abundance of them in GCRs will depend on how long the GCR has traveled [e.g. half of 10Be decays in 1.6 million years]. Again careful studies of this gives you the average travel time as 15 million years [comparable with the one derived from the density]. Since GCRs travel almost at light speed, it means that their average path length is 15 million light years, enough to completely scramble their direction and density.
tallbloke says:
July 4, 2010 at 9:53 am
why some solar system bodies are ‘in tune with the sunspot vibes’ and some not, we might get better clues as to mechanism. Thanks for your sarcastic advice.
Ulrich didn’t think it was sarcastic, and it wasn’t. If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you.
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 10:09 am
“Ulric didn’t think it was sarcastic, and it wasn’t”
Pull the other one, its got bells on.
Ulric Lyons says:
July 4, 2010 at 10:54 am (Edit)
@Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 10:09 am
“Ulric didn’t think it was sarcastic, and it wasn’t”
Pull the other one, its got bells on.
Ding Dong!
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 10:09 am (Edit)
If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you.
It’s not a question of belief, it’s a matter of following where the data leads.
Vuk etc. says:
July 4, 2010 at 6:09 am
I would say it is a ‘perfect’ theoretical sunspot.
That’s an interesting observation.
To have survived in this state(Alpha reversed) for 8 days as the sole sunspot of the Southern Solar Hemisphere is also remarkable.
tallbloke says:
July 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm
<i"If you really believe in this, then there is a fertile hunting ground for you."
It’s not a question of belief, it’s a matter of following where the data leads.
Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too? Do you believe it is possible to try out lines of investigation without becoming attached to “pet theories”?
On another thread Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:19 am
The game is not to keep trying this and trying that, until by chance you get something you like [you know, people trying 20 things and finding one relation that is significant at the 95% level – which is what chance would give you with 20 things].
I think you mischaracterise the methodology of investigation, but here you have descended to rhetoric again, so I won’t take it seriously. Most scientists would be reluctant to admit it, but when trying to make leaps in understanding, they hunt for data which supports their ideas and suggest refinements to them. It’s part of the creative process. Then afterwards, they make predictions to test against as yet unevaluated data, to see if they are onto something. This seems to me to be a reasonable dialectical approach to knowledge formation.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:25 am
And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too?
Of course, it goes for any interpretation of data by everybody. You can only interpret data within the framework of a theory or hypothesis.
On another thread Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 9:19 am
but here you have descended to rhetoric again, so I won’t take it seriously.
Yet you quote it…
Most scientists would be reluctant to admit it, but when trying to make leaps in understanding, they hunt for data which supports their ideas …
Wrong. All scientists will admit this. But also, and more importantly, they hunt even more for or try to produce data that disprove their theories.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:25 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
—————————————————-
And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too? Do you believe it is possible to try out lines of investigation without becoming attached to “pet theories”?
In full agreement tallbloke…hypocrisy in the full extent. I think this blog is starting to wake up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.
The real danger today is data counterfeiters, and they do it for profit.
Some, not being aware of the danger, rely on the forgeries of others.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 12:05 am
Data does not led anywhere. They are seen though the model, hypothesis, theory, etc that you believe they represent.
—————————————————-
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:25 am
And that goes for your ideas about Livingstone and Penn’s data too? Do you believe it is possible to try out lines of investigation without becoming attached to “pet theories”?
___________________________________
Geoff Sharp says:
July 5, 2010 at 8:11 am
In full agreement tallbloke…hypocrisy in the full extent. I think this blog is starting to wake up.
__________________________________
Dr. Svalgaard is defending his paper with a new interpretation of the TSI measurements. The battle over TSI measurements can be seen here. http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
There is no way anyone is going to budge Dr. Svalgaard on TSI given the above.
Only honest measurements from the coming grand minimum might do so…. that is if the data is not fudged and manipulated as most of the data has been.
Leif: The high-energy GCR are not influenced by the heliosphere.
What are the anisotropies outside the heliopause for particles with 100 MeV -10 GeV ?
It is possible to put numbers on the path length .. their average path length is 15 million light years, enough to completely scramble their direction and density.
The densities will not be affected in this way – the scrambling doesn’t create or destroy particles, although indirectly the longer path will ensure more collisions. The reduction of density occurs as the finite number of particles emitted by a source disperse across an increasing expanse – hence, observers more local to the source will experience a denser flux as contributed by that source.
The average 15 million light year journey is the full distance travelled by a particle. The random walk that you mentioned, and the spiralling movements usual to a charged particle traversing a magnetic field, mean the direct distance could be much shorter than that taken by the particle. It would be interesting to know if this has been quantified – it sounds like our detailed knowledge of the interstellar fields is insufficient, though.