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.
Gail Combs says:
Vukcevic, perhaps you could write this up at length and have the article posted here at WUWT. Please make the explanation such that non scientists can follow it (explain abbreviations and concepts, label graphs and such).
I am contemplating it.
About a year ago I wrote one part of it (1900-2000 North Atlantic correlation)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NATA.htm
details of CET
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GMF.htm
and Arctic
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
are to follow (sometime in the near future).
James F. Evans says:
June 27, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Self indulging “flat earthers” won´t change their minds, and it´s Ok, after they become saturated with post normal science salts, they fossilize. (BTW this is an electrochemical process too)
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:35 am
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 am
Leif verified my calcs
I have verified that you [and everybody else] can add up sunspot numbers, that is all.
Here are the calcs you verified. You said: “Calcs are OK” Remember now?
According to a world atlas on the web the area of the world’s open oceans is 335,258,000 sq km.
According to the satellite altimetry, the worlds oceans rose around 32mm between 1993 and 2003.
According to the IPCC around half this rise was due to melting ice and around half was due to thermal expansion of the oceans.
335,258,000 sq km x 16mm = 5364.128km^3 expansion
According to an approximate average of the studies of ocean heat content done by Levitus et al, Ishii and Kimoto, and Domingues, the ocean heat content rose by around 5.5×10^22J over the same period.
Lets use Levitus et al’s 700 metre depth to obtain the volume of water containing this quantity of heat.
335,258,000 sq km x 0.7km = 234,680,600 km^3
The global ocean has an average temperature of around 17C and an average salinity of 35 psu. It’s average density is therefore around 1.025 kg/l
If we convert the volume to cubic decimetres and multiply by the density we should get the mass in kg.
234,680,600 km^3 = 2.3468×10^20 x 1.025kg/l
So the mass of the upper 700m of the worlds ocean is around
240547615000000000000kg or 2.405×10^20kg
(please check orders of magnitude carefully for me)
To raise water 1C requires 4.1855KJ/Kg so 5.5×10^22J is going to raise 2.405×10^20kg of water by
(5.5×10^19KJ / 2.405×10^20kg) / 4.1855 C
Which comes out at around 0.05C
There is a gradient in temperature from the surface down to the thermocline, which stays at a pretty constant temperature so I think this figure is reasonably consistent with a rise in sea surface temperature measured at 0.3C over the 1993-2003 period.
So the remaining question is how much the top 700m of ocean will expand if we warm it from 17C to 17.05C
According to this table, 17C water will change in density from 0.998774g/cm^3 to0.998757g/cm^3 for a 0.1C rise in temperature. This is a factor of 1.000017.
For a 0.05C rise we will get around half this factor so 1.0000085 will be our multiplicand.
1.0000085 x 234,680,600 km^3 (the volume of the top 700m of ocean)
=~1994km^3
Spread this over the world’s oceans and we get a sea level rise due to thermal expansion of ~6mm
But the satellite altimetry measure was ~32mm of which half was thermal expansion, so where’s the missing shilling?
If the altimetry is right, there is much more extra heat hiding in the ocean than a survey of the top 700m reveals.
Or if the Ocean heat content is right, the altimetry has overestimated sea level rise due to thermal expansion by a factor of about 2.7.
The other possibility is that I did my sums wrong 🙂
It’s kinda wild watching folks argue that the only thing that provides energy to the climate somehow doesn’t affect it.
Pofarmer says:
June 28, 2010 at 10:33 am
It’s kinda wild watching folks argue that the only thing that provides energy to the climate somehow doesn’t affect it.
I will give you a simple example of a change in provided energy that does not change the temperature at all, even large changes :
Put a pot of water to boil. The water starts boiling and by definition the temperature stays at 100C. Reduce the wattage by half, the water still boils . Put it very low, still the water boils. You will affect the rate of evaporation, but not the temperature.
An opposite example, of steady energy input (as the total solar irradiance is supposed to be steady by to 0.1%), is putting a pressure cooker with water on the hob. Keep the input energy fixed, the temperature, and pressure, goes up and up until it reaches the valve limit for escaping steam.
So physical systems are not simple, is all I am illustrating. They follow physics laws that sometimes seem to contradict common sense. The planet is a very complicated physical system.
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 9:43 am
Leif verified my calcs
Of the trivial stuff. The important point is how you connect the things.
As I said:
“A good test of a theory is prediction, so calculate the temperature from your model for the past 10,000 years. This should be possible [indeed easy] as all input variables seem to depend only on planetary positions.”
Do this and come back and show us.
vukcevic says:
June 28, 2010 at 8:32 am
Forces acting on a moving (by the above force) ion of saline water are also minute, but not negligible. Action along length of thousands of miles affects the velocity of the current.
You are an engineer. Calculate the force and convince yourself that it is negligible.
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 12:15 pm
That is my point, there is more to the sun than TSI, but it’s all Leif ever discusses,
This is because TSI is the only one that has enough energy to do the job. The UV variations are so small in terms of W/m2 that they don’t matter for the troposphere. Up in the stratosphere and thermosphere the air is so thin that the heating by non-TSI effects can be important. But these changes have a hard time to propagate downwards.
People that study this find very small changes [less that 0.1K] in the troposphere, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL041898.pdf , e.g in discussing two different scenarios wrt to UV variation find: “The global average surface air temperature of solar max minus solar min is ∼0.004 K for scenario I; and is ∼0.05 K for scenario II. In the tropical region in 20°S–20°N, the zonal average surface air temperature of solar max minus solar min is ∼0.002 K for scenario I; and is about 0.02 K for scenario II.”
impression that the IPCC is correct in it’s assessment that the sun has little to do with climate change.
Not the IPCC, but Judith Lean.
Look at the acres of IPCC verbiage he is ramming down our throats on this thread.
You neglect to notice that those quotes were to show that people were wrong in saying that Lean was the only solar physicist and that she only used one of her own papers for the assessment.
It’s standard Stanford global warming central bovine excrement.
I think it is time for you to wash your mouth out with soap.
Perhaps I can help with that, by making a comment on some of Leif’s comments. I’m quite sure that he’ll correct me if I’ve misinterpreted him. ☺ ☺ For someone who works daily in a given field, and who has done so for many years, certain things go without saying because they are so well understood by everyone else in the field, and I think that this is the crux of the matter, but I will elaborate a bit.
In the case of the Sun’s radiative influence on the Earth, the major short-term effects are caused by the Earth revolving around the Sun once a year in an elliptical orbit. As it does this, the distance to the Sun changes, and thus the strength of the incoming radiation changes (the inverse square law). Because of the tilt of the Earth, the incoming radiation also hits different parts of the planet at different angles at different times of the year. All those different parts have different properties (forests, plains, deserts, water, ice, snow, etc.). That causes time-varying local conditions, otherwise known as the seasons.
Summer, for example, occurs wherever/whenever some part of the Earth is tilted more directly towards the Sun. At the present time, this happens in the Northern Hemisphere when we are furthest from the Sun. In the South, it happens when we are closest, and thus the South will generally have warmer Summers than the North. In the same way, Winters tend to be colder in the Southern Hemisphere than in the North at a given latitude above or below the Equator. BTW: I almost forgot to add that last bit, because to me it seemed implicit in the statement. ☺
At the end of a yearly cycle, however, things are more or less back to where they were a year earlier, and that’s what gives local climates. I use that term purposely, because there isn’t really “a single global climate”. There are many climates, and they tend to be much the same from year to year with lots of fluctuations that depend on local conditions and the interactions with adjacent regions.
Here’s an experiment that you can ‘do at home’. Turn on your furnace, or better still, turn it off and plug in a giant space heater in the basement. That’s your source of energy, and if you leave the knob at the same place, the output won’t change. How it affects the house, however, depends on what else you do. You can open doors and windows, or not. You can fill rooms with various things that change the patterns of airflow. You can make one part of the house chilly and another part boiling hot, depending on where you put things and what you do with them, but that old space heater keeps on pumping out the same number of Joules every second (or BTU’s if you prefer). It’s the same thing with the Sun.
So what does all of that have to do with Leif and his discussions? Well, as I see it, Leif takes all that for granted as background information, and I see no reason why he shouldn’t, at least if he’s communicating with people who have an adequate amount of exposure to such issues. What he leaves unsaid is that if you were to put an object, such as a satellite, in a circular orbit around the Sun, at exactly one average Earth-distance from the Sun, and pointed it at the Sun so as to measure the amount of energy received at that location (per m²/sec), you would get very little variation, not only from year to year, but also largely from day to day, very much like that space heater in the basement.
I teach this stuff to undergraduates, and it is easily assimilated even by students who aren’t in a Science program, and who have little background in Mathematics, so it is not unreasonable to assume that it is also understood by those who have a stated interest in the technical details of climate issues, and who profess to have explanations for various things.
/dr.bill
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 8:23 pm
David44 says:
June 27, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Leif Svalgaard says @ur momisugly June 27, 2010 at 6:05 pm
“…there is little, if any influence by the sun on the climate…”
To a novice such as my self, that sounds crazy. Do you mean it literally, or something more like: “the very small variations in solar output that we measure have little or no influence on variations in climate” ?
Clearly the latter.
Clearly this view conflicts with other investigators who find a clear historical correlation between solar variation and climate changes, e.g., Kopp at SORCE (http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm) who says:
(Research and Applications section)
“Measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) are known to be linked to Earth climate and temperature. Proxies of the TSI based on sunspot observations, tree ring records, ice cores, and cosmogenic isotopes have given estimates of the solar influence on the Earth that extend back thousands of years, and correlate with major climatic events on the Earth. These estimates extrapolate many recent detailed observations to long-term observations of fewer (or even one) measurement. For example, accurate TSI measurements from the last 25 years are correlated with solar measurements of sunspots and faculae; these correlations can then be used to extrapolate the TSI to time periods prior to accurate space-borne measurements, since the solar records extend back 100 years for faculae and 400 years for sunspots. Over this extended time range, the extrapolated TSI record can be compared with longer term records, such as tree rings or ice cores, and correlation with these allows extension of the estimated TSI to more distant times, albeit with decreasing certainty. This extrapolation is important for understanding the relationship between TSI and the Earth’s climate; yet the extrapolation begins with the comparison of solar surface features to accurate TSI measurements, a record which is currently only 25 years long.”
So as a layman, whom am I to believe or what am I missing?
Do you discount the supposed historical correlation or merely chalk this up to “Correlation does not necessarily imply causality”? If OTOH, you accept the correlation and some causal link, but TSI alone can’t account for the changes in heat balance required to cause the historical climate changes, then there must either be an unknown TSI multiplier (cosmic rays or whatever) or an unknown confounder linked to both TSI and climate. No?
David44 says:
June 28, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Clearly this view conflicts with other investigators who find a clear historical correlation between solar variation and climate changes
There is no doubt that solar activity influences the climate. Everybody I know agrees with that. The sole question is ‘how much’. There is observational evidence that the amount is of the order of a tenth of a degree. This is much less than the changes that most scientists would say we have observed the past few hundred years, so the variability of the Sun is not a dominant or even significant driver of climate. I wish it were as that would make field of study that more important and ensure funding for decades to come.
Do you discount the supposed historical correlation
The correlations are poor and not convincing.
then there must either be an unknown TSI multiplier (cosmic rays or whatever) or an unknown confounder linked to both TSI and climate. No?
Since the correlations are so poor, there does not seem to be good reasons to invoke unknown factors.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 28, 2010 at 12:35 pm (Edit)
The UV variations are so small in terms of W/m2 that they don’t matter for the troposphere. Up in the stratosphere and thermosphere the air is so thin that the heating by non-TSI effects can be important. But these changes have a hard time to propagate downwards.
The 15% or so variation in UV observed may be having other effects on the atmosphere than the raw number of watts associated with it’s power to heat molecules. The variation in solar wind speed may also be having effects we still don’t understand. The level of uncertainty about these things is high. Which is why categorical statements about the (lack of) effect of the sun’s variation on the Earth’s climate are so unscientific. They give the misleading impression, echoed and propagated by the IPCC, that solar variation can’t have been a big player in global warming.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
E.M. Smith and I have both explained at great length why it is that back radiation from greenhouse gases doesn’t heat the ocean. Only solar radiation does that. I have shown with my calcs above that you are so dismissive of, that variation in insolation is responsible for an extra ~4W/m^2 of heat-energy hitting the ocean surface in the ’93-’03 decade, far more than puny co2 is capable of. Bob Tisdale has demonstrated how it is the oceans which set the air temperature afterwards, you can see the lag in graphs between changes in SST and lower tropospheric temps.
Yet you consistently avoid discussion of these self evident logical implications:
1)Insolation (not TSI) is what determines the amount of energy entering the ocean.
2)The ocean, not the air controls global temperature.
3)The satellite altimetry on sea level, and metrics on melt and runoff show the amount the ocean thermally expanded, and back extrapolation shows this was going on since at least the 1950’s. My calcs demonstrate the forcing was in excess of 4W/m^2. I don’t think that’s a trivial insight backed by figures, even if you do.
4)ISSCP data shows Albedo was reduced during the modern warming period while the sunspot number was well above the ocean equilibrium average of 40SSN. Ocean Heat Content increased.
5)After the sun started going quiet and dropped below 40SSN cloud has increased again (Palle et al) and Ocean heat content (surprise surprise) has started falling since 2003 and is now falling steeply. My calculation that the equilibrium value is 40ssn was derived from TSI data and SST temperature change over the solar cycle. It also happens to be the average sunspot number over the entire period of record.
6)Correlation is not causation so some of these things may be coincidental, but they just as well may not be coincidental. We don’t yet know and should be upfront about the uncertainty rather than being defensive and trying to bolster positions by making categorical assertions.
7)The IPCC and it’s reports are a busted flush, shown to be biased, inaccurate, and full of self certified assertions about matters we cannot pronounce upon.
It’s about time you started discussing the substantive issues, [snip]
During the course of this thread, periodically, Dr. Svalgaard disparages others who point out various “cycles” and calls such conclusions “cyclemania” or words to that effect..
There is something to this general criticism.
Yet, at the same time, Dr. Svalgaard regularly refers to his “own” cycles as a means of prediction, interpretation & explanation.
Thus, casting himself as the “lone authority”.
Sorry, it can’t be both ways.
Either, “cycles” are problematic for everyone and should be viewed with caution and on an equal basis — yet, still to be considered on the logical consistency of the evidence presented as the foundation for the conclusion.
Or, “cycles” are not to be looked at, at all, for all scientists.
Of course, observing & measuring, and, then identifying recurring patterns, is one method of analysis & interpretation.
But, at this time, no one has a lock on the why’s and what for’s of helio cyclical patterns.
Yet, recurrent rhythms are, seemingly, most apparent.
Even if the why’s are not.
Leif Svalgaard says: June 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Calculate the force and convince yourself that it is negligible.
You may think so, but nature is full of surprises, as is when the Earth’s magnetism and the Gulf Stream are concerned, as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC10.htm
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 27, 2010 at 9:21 pm
http://www.leif.org/research/F107%20at%20Minima%201954%20and%202008.png
Note that the blue curve touched the red [coming out of the 1954 minimum into one of the biggest cycles ever], so give it a bit a time.
Please forgive my ignorance Lief, but in what way can you compare the 1954 Minima of 19/20 to the cycle 23/24? The downslope of 23 is nothing like the downslope of 19 and neither is the duration of the Minima.
tallbloke says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
The 15% or so variation in UV observed may be having other effects on the atmosphere than the raw number of watts associated with it’s power to heat
Not the point, the UV has chemical consequences for example, but the energy involved is minute because the air is so thin [1/1000 in stratosphere, one trillionth in the thermosphere]..
The variation in solar wind speed may also be having effects we still don’t understand. The level of uncertainty about these things is high.
No, we have understood these things for decades [not to say that there are still details to fill in].
Which is why categorical statements about the (lack of) effect of the sun’s variation on the Earth’s climate are so unscientific.
What is unscientific is to ascribe this to unknown forces or mechanisms.
E.M. Smith and I have both explained at great length why it is that back radiation from greenhouse gases doesn’t heat the ocean.
Not relevant for solar forcing
I have shown with my calcs above that you are so dismissive of, that variation in insolation is responsible for an extra ~4W/m^2 of heat-energy hitting the ocean surface in the ’93-’03 decade
You have not shown that that is a variation of insolation [you may surmise so, but have not shown so]
1)Insolation (not TSI) is what determines the amount of energy entering the ocean.
Insolation depends on TSI. And on aerosols [volcanoes] and clouds [higher SST, more clouds – with nice negative feedback]
2)The ocean, not the air controls global temperature.
Not relevant for solar forcing
3)The satellite altimetry on sea level, and metrics on melt and runoff show the amount the ocean thermally expanded, and back extrapolation shows this was going on since at least the 1950′s.
You have not demonstrated that that was due to the Sun.
4)ISSCP data shows Albedo was reduced during the modern warming period
Reduced albedo means more absorption, thus higher temps. No surprise.
5)cloud has increased again (Palle et al) and Ocean heat content (surprise surprise) has started falling since 2003 and is now falling steeply.
More clouds, higher albedo, lower temps, no surprise surprise.
6)Correlation is not causation so some of these things may be coincidental, but they just as well may not be coincidental. We don’t yet know and should be upfront about the uncertainty rather than being defensive and trying to bolster positions by making categorical assertions.
Wrong way to do science. You seem to have no uncertainty.
7)The IPCC and it’s reports are a busted flush, shown to be biased, inaccurate, and full of self certified assertions about matters we cannot pronounce upon.
has no bearing on the issue.
discussing the substantive issues, [snip]
I don’t think you have any, so what is there to discuss?
Leif Svalgaard @ur momisugly June 28, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Agreed, the question is how great is the effect, but this is true for CO2 as well. Historical correlation for TSI seems at least as good as for CO2. If the correlations between TSI and climate are poor and inconsistent, why does everyone you know agree that solar activity influences climate? Seems logically inconsistent, but you are entitled to your prejudices the same as everyone else. Thanks for all of your replies.
David
Geoff Sharp says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:23 am
For a UV variation of 15%, that might be sufficient to move the blackbody temp of the Sun.
If it did move the peak of output, where is it now?
I asked this same question in another thread, but can’t remember where and don’t know if someone answered. My fault.
How the Earth would react to shifting spectral output is a whole ‘nother ball game.
So, if someone already answered
James F. Evans says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Yet, at the same time, Dr. Svalgaard regularly refers to his “own” cycles as a means of prediction, interpretation & explanation.
Cycles are not used for anything. We make the prediction a few years ahead of time by observing the polar fields.
Ryan Welch says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:11 pm
in what way can you compare the 1954 Minima of 19/20 to the cycle 23/24?
You compare them by plotting them on the same graph, like you compare thing A with thing B by putting them next to one another and observing them carefully.
The downslope of 23 is nothing like the downslope of 19 and neither is the duration of the Minima.
What you see is that the downslope of 18 [not 19 – that is the upslope] was steeper than 23, because 18 was a much higher cycle [as simple as that]. The duration of the minima were pretty much the same: about 0.6 years on either side of the minimum point [near 2009.0]. The upslope of 24 is much weaker than the upslope of 19, which is one of the signs that our prediction of ‘the smallest cycle in 100 years’ is on track and may even come true.
Hi Leif,
Thank you, I’ve just found your reply from an earlier solar thread. The comments are now closed, so with the moderators permission I hope:
Thanks for the news of and link to the new Webber and Higbie paper
The authors, in coming to their conclusion that their data are inconsistent with the assumption of a mostly linear 10Be concentration/production relationship , appear to assume (in paragraphs 6,16 and 19) that the LIS for cosmic rays during the Maunder and Sporer minima did not exceed the levels measured by Voyager in its few decades of operation.
I couldn’t find, in my admittedly quick reading of the paper, any reasoning presented to explain why the Voyager measurements should provide an upper bound for past CR LIS. Is there any evidence or argument in support of the assumption?
Leif:
Even Newton knew that there is no gravity inside a spherical shell of matter [ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html ], so the atom does not feel any force from what is further away from the center of the Sun than it is, but only from matter that is closer to the center of the Sun than it is.
Sorry, Leif, the link you gave says that:
“”The net gravitational force on a mass anywhere inside a uniform shell of mass is zero.””
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html
Clearly this is wrong, as I have been 2000′ under the Earth (well inside a spherical shell of mass) and I can assure you that I was not weightless (I was in a deep mine, and walking on the floor in the normal manner). Likewise, drill bits down some 10km inside the Earth are not weightless. Also, as I understand it, convection currents (as present inside the Earth and Sun) can only occur in the presence of a gravity gradient, and not in a weightlessness environment. Thus the weight of a mass inside a sphere of mass HAS to be proportional in some sense to its distance from the center of that sphere.
Anyway, I think we both concur that an atom at the very center of the Sun is weightless, with equal gravitational mass on all sides. But my suggestion is that if a small void develops at the very center of the Sun, then the presence of that void will cause an asymmetry to the gravity gradient that will sustain and perpetuate that void, so it becomes a permanent feature.
.
oneuniverse says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm
… the new Webber and Higbie paper
The authors, in coming to their conclusion that their data are inconsistent with the assumption of a mostly linear 10Be concentration/production relationship , appear to assume (in paragraphs 6,16 and 19) that the LIS for cosmic rays during the Maunder and Sporer minima did not exceed the levels measured by Voyager in its few decades of operation.
I couldn’t find, in my admittedly quick reading of the paper, any reasoning presented to explain why the Voyager measurements should provide an upper bound for past CR LIS. Is there any evidence or argument in support of the assumption?
_________________________________________________________________
For what it is worth NASA says this:
Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
“”In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech….
1. The sun’s magnetic field is weak. “There has been a sharp decline in the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field down to 4 nT (nanoTesla) from typical values of 6 to 8 nT,” …
2. The solar wind is flagging. “Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft show that solar wind pressure is at a 50-year low,” …
3. The current sheet is flattening….. The current sheet is important because cosmic rays are guided by its folds. Lately, the current sheet has been flattening itself out, allowing cosmic rays more direct access to the inner solar system…
“If the flattening continues, we could see cosmic ray fluxes jump all the way to 30% above previous Space Age highs,” predicts Mewaldt…
we’ve experienced much worse in the past. Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% to 300% higher than anything measured during the Space Age. Researchers know this because when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, they produce an isotope of beryllium, 10Be, which is preserved in polar ice. By examining ice cores, it is possible to estimate cosmic ray fluxes more than a thousand years into the past. Even with the recent surge, cosmic rays today are much weaker than they have been at times in the past millennium….
“The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity,” says Mewaldt. “We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries.””
Ralph says:
June 28, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Clearly this is wrong, as I have been 2000′ under the Earth (well inside a spherical shell of mass)
You were not weightless because there is still 20904000′ below you and you were feeling the force of the mass below you.
oneuniverse says:
June 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm
any reasoning presented to explain why the Voyager measurements should provide an upper bound for past CR LIS. Is there any evidence or argument in support of the assumption?
Voyager is outside the termination shock and has measured the Proton and Helium nuclii spectra. And from those the LIS can be estimated. The detailed reasoning is given in their paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JA014532.pdf to which I refer.
Their conclusion is that the maximum possible 10Be production is only 1.5 times the production at recent solar minima. And that therefore the significantly higher concentrations measured during the Maunder Minimum are most likely not solely related to changes in the sun but that other effects such as local and regional climate near the deposition sites may play a significant role in 10Be concentrations.
the 1953-56 Butterfly closeup
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC18_19.PNG
Compare that to 2007-present
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC23_24.PNG
How the umbral area of SC18_19 tracked the flux
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC18_19.GIF
the 1953-56 Butterfly closeup
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC18_19.PNG
Compare that to 2007-present
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ButterflySC23_24.PNG
And how the umbral area/5 tracked with the flux for 1953-56
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC18_19.GIF