NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) produced their monthly solar cycle progression update yesterday. The news is not encouraging. We’ve had a drop in solar activity again in December, The sunspot count is lower, but the really worrisome thing is the Ap geomagnetic index. The solar dynamo has now dropped to magnetic activity levels last seen in late 2009. Readers may recall this post from December 23rd: Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index Hits Zero which was a bit unusual this far into cycle 24.
Here’s the Ap Index from SWPC:
The Ap value of 3 was last seen in late 2009 and early 2010, which bracketed the lowest value seen in 10 years (on the SWPC graph) of Ap=2 in December 2009. It was also the lowest value in the record then. SWPC has since revised their data upwards from 1 to 2 for December 2009. Here’s what it looked like then:
And here is the story at that time:
The 10.7 centimeter radio flux is a bit more encouraging, but still rather anemic compared to where to where it should have been in the solar cycle.
Here’s the data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/RecentIndices.txt
The last major update to NOAA’s prediction came in May 2009 when they wrote:
May 8, 2009 — The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.
It seems to be time again for an update, since it seems likely that the “consensus prediction” has failed.
The Livingston and Penn data (from Dr. Leif Svalgaard) continues unabated and on track for sunspots to become invisible when the umbral magnetic field reaches ~1500 gauss.
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
But the rest of the world is now just getting around to realizing the significance of the work Livingston and Penn are doing related to sunspots. Science ran with a significant story: Say goodbye to sunspots
Here’s a prominent excerpt:
The last solar minimum should have ended last year, but something peculiar has been happening. Although solar minimums normally last about 16 months, the current one has stretched over 26 months—the longest in a century. One reason, according to a paper submitted to the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273, an online colloquium, is that the magnetic field strength of sunspots appears to be waning.
…
Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, by 2016 the sun’s face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth.
We live in interesting times.
Now I’m P Ode.
“Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:
1n + 14N → 14C + 1H
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 readily mixes and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also dissolves in water and thus permeates the oceans. Carbon-14 can also be produced in ice by fast neutrons causing spallation reactions in oxygen.
Carbon-14 then goes through radioactive beta decay..””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
Still can’t find the exact carbon rich clumpy was looking for (it was on a site line) but..maybe putting it in Earth’s orbital path works better here. Or not..
The Galactic Environment of the Sun: Interstellar
Material Inside and Outside of the Heliosphere
P.C. Frisch · M. Bzowski · E. Grün · V. Izmodenov · H. Krüger · J.L. Linsky ·
D.J. McComas · E. Möbius · S. Redfield · N. Schwadron · R. Shelton · J.D. Slavin ·
B.E. Wood May 14, 2009
pg 14
“”..Interstellar particles with optical properties of astronomical
silicates or organic refractory materials are consistent with the observed radiation
pressure effects (Landgraf et al. 1999), however the overabundance of carbon in the CHISM
(Sect. 4.3) appears to rule out a significant proportion of organics. The heliospheric trajectories
of the largest ISDGs with radii ≥7 μm are determined by solar gravity. These large
grains are predicted to form a “focusing cone” downwind of the Sun (Grogan et al. 1996;
Landgraf 2000)..
circumheliospheric interstellar medium (CHISM),””
From Peru says:
January 7, 2011 at 4:50 pm
If so, what do you think was the cause of the LIA?
Any complex system has chaotic oscillations. If you think that the LIA was not one like that, but was caused by a change of the sun, then what was the cause of that oscillation? Is the sun allowed to have random fluctuations, but the Earth not?
Carla says:
January 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Then the cosmic lexion must be wrong?
I suggest that your grasp of these things is the tenuous part of the whole shebang.
The oldest objects that can be found on Earth are made of Carbon, it is thought they predate formation of the solar system (presolar), can be found only in two places (Bahia Brazil and Central African republic, hit by carbon meteorite, when two continents were part of a single land mass). They are carbonado diamonds.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 7, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Carla says:
January 7, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Then the cosmic lexion must be wrong?
I suggest that your grasp of these things is the tenuous part of the whole shebang.
~
The solar system accretes solids, gas, plasma and subs of . Whether it be carbon, oxygen or the H2o group or GCR or the multitude of other..and that depends on the availability (at any given time) within the very local interstellar medium. The carbon dioxide swings in Earth’s history can be quite dramatic. I’m not trying to say that mankinds contribution to the planets chaos is without effects. That oil thing bothers me more than the pollutions it can produce. Maybe I need to stop viewing crude as a lubricant. ..lol
Here get a grip on this, one for each hand q. .lol
http://lyrics.smashits.com/artwork/d8/d8048e4a87fb13de63bc23d9b62da8f7.jpg
Didn’t really want to go off on that carbon thingy. Goal was to do the indices lesson above that was so kindly provided by our good friend Dr. S..
Then start on that Mystery..
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 1:57 am
The oldest objects that can be found on Earth are made of Carbon, it is thought they predate formation of the solar system (presolar)
Everything on Earth is older than the formation of the solar system. The snowballs my grandkids are playing with contain Hydrogen which is 13.7 years old.
I said ‘object’, not atom or molecule.
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=07-X2
Read and leard.
You are master of a statement distortion (KGB?), as you have shown on many occasions.
Haven’t you got anything better to do?
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:17 am
I said ‘object’, not atom or molecule.
Objects consists of atoms too. When they assembled into an object is irrelevant for when they were created. A jeweler puts diamonds in a tiara, making that a new object. Your comment was needlessly off topic.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:47 am
Your comment was needlessly off topic.
Nonsense and again a deliberate distortion of the facts.
Point you raised was
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’..
Carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe. You are only showing your ignorance. Carbonado is rare and may be only solid carbon object (of considerable size) that can be found on Earth, older than and with the origin outside the solar system.
If Earth as a tiny speck in Galaxy was impacted by considerable quantity, then amount of it throughout universe must be immense!
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’..
Carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe.
Do the math. Consider a column 1 square meter in cross section extending upwards from you to the end of the visible universe, and calculate the number of carbon atoms between you and the top of the atmosphere [TOA] and between TOA and the end of the visible universe. And compare and tell us.
Vuk etc. says:
January 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Nonsense and again a deliberate distortion of the facts. You are only showing your ignorance
Do the math. Consider a column 1 square meter in cross section extending upwards from to top of the atmosphere to the end of the visible universe
Hint: that column contains about 5 grammes baryonic matter.
Leif Svalgaard says: …..
===========
Thanks for the explanations, and the patience.
It is appreciated.
And enlightening.
u.k.(us) says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Thanks for the explanations, and the patience.
It is appreciated. And enlightening.
You are welcome. On others, my words sometimes fall on barren ground.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm
……………
Absolute nonsense.
Carbon (C), the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, after hydrogen (H), helium (He), and oxygen (O).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Astronomers have discovered that a huge, searing-hot planet orbiting another star is loaded with an unusual amount of carbon. Carbon is a common component of planetary systems.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-409
Earth and its atmospheric carbon (only 0.03%), Venus atmosphere is Earth size contains hundreds of times more carbon than the Earth’s , it is composed chiefly of carbon dioxide, which generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth.
Earth is less than a spec on the expanse of the Universe. I hope rest of the stuff you write is more accurate than the above nonsense.
Vuk etc. says:
January 9, 2011 at 1:02 am
Absolute nonsense.
Carbon (C), the fourth most abundant element in the Universe
–Do the math. Consider a column 1 square meter in cross section extending upwards from to top of the atmosphere to the end of the visible universe
Hint: that column contains about 5 grammes baryonic matter.–
You didn’t do the math [you never do – you biggest problem]
The density of the Universe is 1E-27 kg/m3. The distance we can see is 13.7 billion light years. One light year is 1E16 m, so 13.7 billion of those is 1.37E26 m, so the column 1 m square in cross section is that many cubic meters 1.37E26 m3 at a density of 1E-27 kg/m3, for a total mass of 137 gram. Only 4% of that is baryons or 5 gram, and only 0.4% of that is carbon, for a grand total of 0.26 gram.
Now, you calculate the amount of carbon in the Earth’s atmospehre in a 1 m2 column and compare.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm
………………
Weasel words.
And that is rubbish too. Space above your head is volume ascribed by a 3-dimentional conus from centre of the Earth, which increases by cube of the distance.
Just to Proxima Centauri (nearest star) is (9,460,730,472,581 KM/6000km)^3 =1576788412^3 = 3920308631795189445760750528 times than you calculate. To the end of visible universe =
3920308631795189445760750528 x 3 000 000 000 = 1.2 x 10^37 greater than you suggest it to be.
But standing in the SH sun is straight above my head.
correction for the above:
final figure is 1.2×10^37 x 9 x 10^18 = 1 x 10^56 greater than you suggest it to be.
Vuk etc. says:
January 9, 2011 at 2:43 am
Space above your head is volume ascribed by a 3-dimentional conus from centre of the Earth, which increases by cube of the distance.
I specified clearly that I was talking about a 1 sq meter cross section column. This is a simplification of the real you. If you travel upwards your personal space say 2 meters of that column, travels with you. You can sample that space and count the carbon atoms in it. As you travel from the top of the atmosphere to the end of the visible atmosphere, you’ll encounter the 0.26 grams of carbon.
Done for now.
CO2 scewed.
Be10 scewed.
Starting to see a scew in the F10
too close and too far oh my..
Nonsense. Trying to dig your self out of the hole. No sq. m mentioned here.
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’.
Now, if top of your head is not part of an absolutelyconcentric circle (with the Earth surface) but a bit more rounded , then there is even bigger chunk of universe is about it.
If you do science that is 0.26 grams x 10^56 =2.60×10^52 kg.
The mass of the earth is 5.9736×10^24 kg
Or 4.5 x 10^27 the Earth’s mass.
vukcevic says:
January 9, 2011 at 9:04 am
Nonsense. Trying to dig your self out of the hole. No sq. m mentioned here.
‘There is more Carbon between you and the top of the atmosphere than between the top of the atmosphere and the end of the visible universe’.
It was implicit in the ‘you’. That you didn’t get it was perhaps my fault as I should have foreseen that and spelled it out for you in greater detail.
I, as any other rational person would, consider the whole of celestial hemisphere to be above my head.
Vuk etc says:
January 9, 2011 at 11:51 am
I, as any other rational person would, consider the whole of celestial hemisphere to be above my head.
From my initial statement any rational person would conclude that that was not what was meant. The purpose of my comment was to point out how exceedingly empty the Universe is, not that carbon was rare among elements; this should have been clear from the outset. If it wasn’t that is entirely my fault. Perhaps I presume too much and expect too much of the readership.
Above = higher than
At level = at same height
Below = lower then
This is getting ridiculous, I give up.