Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 601 to 619 of 619

Thread: Solar cycle #24

  1. #601
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    When the tide goes it is clear who does or does not have a swimming suit.
    LOL, so, you ignore everything you posted before, that's been refuted and don't answer any of the questions put to you. And try to obscure that by posting something else. Well, let's see how that works.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    http://www.probeinternational.org/Li...-penn-2010.pdf

    This recently published paper by Livingston and Penn
    Actually, this goes back to September of 2010 and you have used this paper before in post #575, on 7 April, 2012, Post #561 24 September, 2011. I'll refer to it here as L&P2010

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    discusses in some detail the errors and issues concerning other author's work. Read through it if your are interested.
    Actually, this is false. They discuss their work, and the work of others, and some of the differences that arise in each of the work. But, there is no detailing of errors or issues of other author's work. If you think there are, by all means, point out the relevant passage in the paper. They do list others work, stating as a heading for part 3 of their paper, "Searching for Support in Other Data". Which appears to mean, they don't think they have enough support.

    Quote Originally Posted by L&P2010
    If we examine the measurements in Figure 1 which have magnetic fields only above 2200 Gauss, the temporal trend is not apparent.
    Do you see that William? L&P2010 admit they can't find a decline over time, if sunspots with magnetic fields over 2200G are considered. I made this point to you before (sometime last year, but it's late and I don't feel like going back to look for it. If you want, I can find it for you). Onward

    Quote Originally Posted by L&P2010
    In the first analysis of that data set, Penn & MacDonald (2007) selected isolated spots by hand. About 4000 sunspots and pores were examined, and a cyclic behavior was seen in the minimum brightness found in these dark spots in phase with the sunspot cycle; darker sunspots were more common during solar maximum, and brighter sunspots were more common during solar minimum. ...At the time, the uptick in the magnetic field strengths seen by Livingston in 2007 and 2008 suggested that perhaps there was a solar-cycle dependence.
    Yeah, guess what? From Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012 (which I now link to for the third time and you have yet to refute):

    Quote Originally Posted by Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012
    The magnetic field strength of sunspots increased at the beginning of solar cycle no. 24. This indicates that the observed trend of Bmax is likely to be a cyclic pattern rather than a long-term evolution. Comparing the field strength in the early stages of cycle nos. 23 and 24, we find a slight reduction in Bmax in the new cycle that, however, will need to be confirmed by additional data in the future.
    Note the bold. This is something the L&P2010 mentioned in their paper. That the field strengths measurements suggest that the rise and fall may be tied to the rise and fall of the cycle. P&L2010 even note that the field strengths INCREASED in 2007 and 2008. When are you going to take notice of that, William? Part of the problem with L&P comparing the rise of Cycle 23 and 24 is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Watson, Fletcher, Marshall, 2011
    Sadly, there are no yearly averages in the Livingston and Penn data between 1994 and 2001 to better compare the two studies.
    Lets see what else we can find in the L&P2010 paper, shall we?

    Quote Originally Posted by L&P2010
    A more detailed analysis of the KPVT data set was performed by Tom Schad (Schad & Penn 2010)...resulting in the identification of over 13,000 dark spots...This work showed that there were only small temporal changes in the spot intensities and magnetic field strengths.
    Remember, dark spots, high magnetic fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by L&P2010
    Observations of the brightness of sunspots as measured with MDI showed no changes from 1998-2004 (Mathew et al. 2007) which is consistent with the observed KPVT data during this time interval.
    Remember, the KPVT data was used by Penn & McDonald and they found a cyclic behavior, similar to the one found in Rezaei, Beck, and Schmidt.

    Quote Originally Posted by L&P2010
    And most recently in these proceedings, measurements of the magnetic fields from sunspot umbrae near the center of the solar disk using MDI magnetograms (Watson & Fletcher 2010) show a smaller decrease in the magnetic field strength.
    And, while this decrease is smaller, it still falls within the error bars of L&P2010. However, it does not take into account the increase (2007-2008)and plateau (2010-2011) of the field strength.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Livingston and Penn note based on their analysis that solar cycle 25 will peak with a sunspot number of 7. That sounds like an interrupt to the solar magnetic cycle. Let's compare that prediction with the upcoming new predictions. Maximum of 7. Maximum of 7. Single digit.
    Yes and they also predict a maximum of 66 for cycle 24. But using current data from 2012, the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) shows the smoothed number will peak at anywhere from 85-110 or possibly 100-130 , but I think that 85 to be more likely. Note that the smoothed count is already at 60, and there is a lag of six months, and those six months are among the most active (excepting Feburary) of this cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    I await with bated anticipation the opportunity to watch the backtracking as further data concerning solar cycle 24 comes in.
    You mean like backtracking you should be doing for the following (I found these four really quick, I can find quite a few more if you want):

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    1.) what's the explanation for the solar flux is dropping and the total number of sunspots is dropping December, 2011 to April 2012.
    And of course the solar flux and sunspot cycle has rebounded to November levels. Not to mention you still haven't explained how 2012 is still higher than 5 of the first seven months of 2011.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    2.) Your link, which is the current month's graph, shows a decline in the solar flux from a high in December of ~182 to a low of today (4/17) of ~102.
    This page , shows a high of ~153 in March of 2011 to a low of ~80 just before the end of May, 2011. Well, yes there was another point. Both declines within 10 of each other. So explain why the fall in March to May, 2011 isn't such a big deal, when you think the one for December -April 2012 is.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    3.) the northern polar field could reverse polarity in June or July 2011
    I think this one was the funniest. A prediction that the northern polar field could reverse in June or July of 2011, posted in September of 2011, when it was known in September of 2011 that the northern polar field hadn't reversed.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    4.) The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decrease.
    You continue to insist on this. And even through you've been asked, you still haven't explained how the increase in field strength in 2007-2008, as shown by even Penn and Livingston, is a continuing decrease.

    So, are we going to see your backtracking here? Oh, and as I type this, the new daily numbers for the solar report for April 25th came in. Sunspot number: 169, Solar Flux: 115, Solar Wind Speed: 346-719 Km/s. Monthly Number as of today Sunspot Number:55 estimated with another week to go, Solar Flux: 111.5 current, should approach Oct-Dec numbers. Want to talk about those claims of a 40% decrease in wind speed and a drop since December on the solar flux? I say another week to go on the sunspots, but here is the current image of the sun. Should be quite a few for the next several days, which will increase the sunspot number.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Oh if anyone is interested, there was a delay in the terrestrial changes due to the Maunder minimum of 10 to 12 years. The sun was at its highest activity level in 8000 years in the last half of the 20th century and is now changing to Maunder minimum.
    You mean the way you kept stating this paper claimed the sun was changing to a Maunder minimum. But, interestingly, when you read the actual paper, they never make that claim. Or, are you going to abandon this paper now?

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    British Columbia
    Posts
    2,963
    So, much of William's argument hinges on the Penn & Livingston, 2010 (PL2010) paper whose latest data were recorded in August of 2010. Much has happened since then. For example, Tensor points to Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012, whose preprint version appeared March 8 this year. It seems to have been ignored by William.

    I realized that it's possible to show how other solar data vary on the same time scale as the PL2010 data. So, here is Figure 1 as it appears in the preprint:



    And the following are the Penticton 2800MHz Solar Flux data to the end of March (that's the full data set I could find at this date) and the International Sunspot Number to the end of March superimposed on the PL2010 Figure 1. The time scales align properly by the way I clipped the PL2010 chart and set the scale on the data I charted.




    Comments? It makes me very curious to see what P&L are recording these days.

    Edit to add: I see that Leif has a chart with the latest P&L data (I suspect it's been linked here at some time already), but it looks a bit small to embed as a background as I did above. (It looks like a snapshot from someone's spreadsheet, and I notice it's missing the 1998 data.) If someone knows where the data are stored, a pointer would be nice...
    Last edited by Torsten; 2012-Apr-25 at 10:46 PM. Reason: ETA at end of post.

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Oh my dear. Two additional papers that discuss observational evidence which indicates that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and the sun is moving to a Maunder minimum. The two additional papers and Livingston and Penn's observations were presented at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, June, 2011.

    Oh my dear, an announcement, April 19, 2012 from the Japanese Polar observing satellite Hinode (thanks for the link Jens!) the Northern solar pole has reversed a year ahead of schedule. (The cycle reaches it maximum when the reversal occurs.)

    Are you guys going to continue to beat that poor dead horse?

    http://www2.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html
    National Solar Observatory

    Press Release June, 2011: Discussing, three papers that were presented at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society.
    What's Down with the Sun? Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted,
    A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

    As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all. The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces:
    ….“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.” Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, which is half of the Sun’s 22-year magnetic interval since the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.

    Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week. Using data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) of six observing stations around the world, the team translates surface pulsations caused by sound reverberating through the Sun into models of the internal structure. One of their discoveries is an east-west zonal wind flow inside the Sun, called the torsional oscillation, which starts at mid-latitudes and migrates towards the equator. The latitude of this wind stream matches the new spot formation in each cycle, and successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

    “We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.” In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior. For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot. Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.

    Moving outward, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s Sunspot, NM, facilities has observed a slowing of the “rush to the poles,” the rapid poleward march of magnetic activity observed in the Sun’s faint corona. Altrock used four decades of observations with NSO’s 40-cm (16-inch) coronagraphic telescope at Sunspot. “A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun,” Altrock explained. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun.” Altrock used a photometer to map iron heated to 2 million degrees C (3.6 million F). Stripped of half of its electrons, it is easily concentrated by magnetism rising from the Sun. In a well-known pattern, new solar activity emerges first at about 70 degrees latitude at the start of a cycle, then towards the equator as the cycle ages. At the same time, the new magnetic fields push remnants of the older cycle as far as 85 degrees poleward. “In cycles 21 through 23, solar maximum occurred when this rush appeared at an average latitude of 76 degrees,” Altrock said. “Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23’s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat).

    No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.” All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while. “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
    http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/news/120419P.../index_e.shtml

    Press release, April 19, 2012
    Polar Field Reversal as observed with Hinode
    The international research team led by Saku Tsuneta, a professor at NAOJ, has been performing the monthly polar observations with Hinode from September 2008. We here report the discovery that the average magnetic flux of the north polar region is rapidly and steadily decreasing during the period of 2008 and 2012 (Figure B). The reversal (from minus to plus polarity) is taking place in sequence from lower latitude to higher latitude. The average magnetic flux of the polar region soon becomes zero. The estimated completion of the reversal of the north polar region will take place in 1 months or so, about one year earlier than the nominal expected reversal time.
    Last edited by William; 2012-Apr-26 at 02:57 AM.

  4. #604
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Oh my dear. Two additional papers that discuss observational evidence which indicates that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and the sun is moving to a Maunder minimum. The two additional papers and Livingston and Penn's observations were presented at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, June, 2011.
    Ya know, I was going to go through each of your points tonight, but I've been going through papers for the "Fun Papers in Arxiv thread", and it's late. So, I decided to just point out that you have yet to refute the points I've brought up in my last 5-6 posts. You simply ignore the points that refute you, any data that you don't like and post something, apparently hoping no one notices you points were refuted. So why should I bother going through the point in this post, you're more than likely going to ignore them again. The funny part is you'll probably post something you've posted several times before. You just post something, seemingly so you don't have to acknowledge that your points have all been refuted. And, I take that back. I will point out one thing, one you tend to do over and over again.

    From your post:

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Oh my dear, an announcement, April 19, 2012 from the Japanese Polar observing satellite Hinode (thanks for the link Jens!) the Northern solar pole has reversed a year ahead of schedule.
    Note where you said the North solar pole has reversed a year ahead of schedule. Well, lets look at that shall we. To quote from the Japanese paper:

    The estimated completion of the reversal of the north polar region will take place in 1 months or so, about one year earlier than the nominal expected reversal time.

    You completely misrepresented what the Japanese press release said. They said it is estimated that the reversal will be complete in another month OR SO. Not that is has completed the reversal. You said that it has reversed. As in it has completed it's reversal. Care to explain why you claim it has reversed, when the Japanese say it hasn't yet?

    And I will continue pointing our your misrepresentations, so others don't get the wrong idea. I may get back to this tomorrow morning.

  5. #605
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,254
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Oh my dear. Two additional papers that discuss observational evidence which indicates that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and the sun is moving to a Maunder minimum. The two additional papers and Livingston and Penn's observations were presented at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, June, 2011.

    Oh my dear, an announcement, April 19, 2012 from the Japanese Polar observing satellite Hinode (thanks for the link Jens!) the Northern solar pole has reversed a year ahead of schedule. (The cycle reaches it maximum when the reversal occurs.)

    Are you guys going to continue to beat that poor dead horse?
    William has been infracted and suspended for rude comments like "Are you guys going to continue to beat that poor dead horse?" and all the "Oh my dear" comments. He has a long history of this rude behavior (and of posting borderline ATM) and was just warned and infracted (just shy of a suspension) for this same rude behavior a couple of weeks ago.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,916
    Oh my dear. I rather enjoyed this thread.

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,916
    I notice in SOHO real time images, that most sunspots are in the southern hemisphere. Could this be a sign that the reversal is in progress?

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Superluminal View Post
    I notice in SOHO real time images, that most sunspots are in the southern hemisphere. Could this be a sign that the reversal is in progress?
    No, not really, just chance, here is the sun with sunspots on spaceweather dot com.
    Look at the butterfly diagram and you see that it is basically evenly distributed.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Superluminal View Post
    I notice in SOHO real time images, that most sunspots are in the southern hemisphere. Could this be a sign that the reversal is in progress?
    Just to add to what tusenfem said , here is 12 January, 2012 and April 6, 2012 . Note that the sunspots are in the northern hemisphere. If you look back you will see various shots with most in the south, shots with most in the north, and a scatter with the spots more or less equally spread between the north and south.

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    297
    so we have a new BIG spot now in the news

    what is the trend now

    minimum ?
    and will that be colder or what

    sub-normal ?

    normal ?
    so hotter ?

    is the sun countering GW or what ever they call it this week
    or just a little hick-cup ?

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    so we have a new BIG spot now in the news

    what is the trend now
    Current smoothed sunspot trend is still up. It lags by six months. Here is the data going forward, based on current monthly numbers since October. Here is the monthly with the smoothed sunspot number graphically. Here is the comparison to some previous cycles. Note that we're ahead of two and not that far behind of two others.

    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    minimum ?
    Who knows? Here a comparison going back to 1700. Note that cycles 12,13, and 14 (two of which the current cycle is higher than), had the number of spots increase after that cycle. Of course, cycles 4,5 and 6 are lower than the current cycle and the number of spots increase after those also. Pretty much have to wait and see.

    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    and will that be colder or what

    sub-normal ?

    normal ?
    so hotter ?
    If the trend keeps going, it will continue to get hotter. Especially has the recent La Nina appears to be ending. The La Nina had tempered the warming somewhat. But, even so, recent years have been warmer.

    Quote Originally Posted by nota View Post
    is the sun countering GW or what ever they call it this week
    or just a little hick-cup ?
    While a variation in the sun has some minor effects to the temps, the current AWG trend has nothing to do with the sun and the decrease of sunspots will not counteract the AGW that has caused the increase in the Earth's mean temperature.

  12. #612
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Is something unusual happening to the sun? See this May 1, 2012 announcement from NASA that solar cycle 24 will be the weakest magnetic cycle in a 100 years.

    Stay tune. I am truly curious as to the timing and content of subsequent news releases concerning the sun and this change.


    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

    Solar Cycle Prediction
    (Updated 2012/05/01), May 1, 2012

    The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. We are currently over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.


    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2...00%20years.pdf

    This is a published paper that predicted the smallest solar cycle in 100 years, the paper in question has published five years ago.


    Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?

    Sunspot cycle 24: Smallest cycle in 100 years?
    Leif Svalgaard,1 Edward W. Cliver,2 and Yohsuke Kamide1
    Received 3 October 2004; revised 10 November 2004; accepted 9 December 2004; published 11 January 2005.
    This is a press June, 2011 release that noted there were three published papers that noted that sun appears to moving towards a Maunder minimum. The press release noted the three papers were to be discussed presented and discussed at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society.


    Press Release June, 2011:

    http://www2.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

    What's Down with the Sun? Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted,
    A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

    As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all. The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces:
    ….“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.” Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, which is half of the Sun’s 22-year magnetic interval since the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.

    Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week. Using data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) of six observing stations around the world, the team translates surface pulsations caused by sound reverberating through the Sun into models of the internal structure. One of their discoveries is an east-west zonal wind flow inside the Sun, called the torsional oscillation, which starts at mid-latitudes and migrates towards the equator. The latitude of this wind stream matches the new spot formation in each cycle, and successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

    “We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.” In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior. For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot. Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.

    Moving outward, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s Sunspot, NM, facilities has observed a slowing of the “rush to the poles,” the rapid poleward march of magnetic activity observed in the Sun’s faint corona. Altrock used four decades of observations with NSO’s 40-cm (16-inch) coronagraphic telescope at Sunspot. “A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun,” Altrock explained. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun.” Altrock used a photometer to map iron heated to 2 million degrees C (3.6 million F). Stripped of half of its electrons, it is easily concentrated by magnetism rising from the Sun. In a well-known pattern, new solar activity emerges first at about 70 degrees latitude at the start of a cycle, then towards the equator as the cycle ages. At the same time, the new magnetic fields push remnants of the older cycle as far as 85 degrees poleward. “In cycles 21 through 23, solar maximum occurred when this rush appeared at an average latitude of 76 degrees,” Altrock said. “Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23’s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat).

    No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.” All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while. “If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”
    Last edited by William; 2012-May-11 at 03:34 AM. Reason: Fixed link

  13. #613
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Is something unusual happening to the sun? See this May 1, 2012 announcement from NASA that solar cycle 24 will be the weakest magnetic cycle in a 100 years.

    Stay tune. I am truly curious as to the timing and content of subsequent news releases concerning the sun and this change.
    Solar Cycle Prediction
    (Updated 2012/05/01), May 1, 2012

    The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 60 in the Spring of 2013. We are currently over three years into Cycle 24. The current predicted size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle in about 100 years.
    http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
    Which is truly interesting as the current smoothed sunspot number for October 2011 (the last non-preliminary month as there is a six month lag) is 59.9. It's already at the number you're showing as the prediction for spring of next year.


    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2...00%20years.pdf

    This is a published paper that predicted the smallest solar cycle in 100 years, the paper in question has published five years ago.
    And, so? Cycles 14-16 from 1900-1930 went 60-100-70 and cycles 5-7 went 50-50-70. But they all went back over 100 after those cycles.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    This is a press June, 2011 release that noted there were three published papers that noted that sun appears to moving towards a Maunder minimum. The press release noted the three papers were to be discussed presented and discussed at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society.


    Press Release June, 2011:

    http://www2.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html
    Your continued use of that press release is easy to refute with newer data and studies, for example:

    Next month, Dr. Hill(along with his co-authors (Howe, Schou, Thompson, Larson, and Kommwill) be presenting a paper explaining the zonal flow that should have appeared in 2010, actually did, but couldn't be seen due to a change in the background differential rotation. However, it has been seen now, according to Dr. Hill. Which pretty much invalidates your claim using the press release concerning the Torsional Oscillation not being seen. According to Dr. Hill cycle 25 should begin 2021-2022, with him leaning to the later date. Which isn't surprising since cycle 24 will be weaker than the preceding cycles, and weaker cycles tend to run longer. However, he is firm about Cycle 25 beginning, there not being a "not happening at all" possibility.

    As far as Livingston and Penn are concerned, I've refuted your presentation of their 2006 and 2010 papers in Post #521, 523, 529, 548, 562, 570, 581, 583, 595, and 601( Those interested can find post #521 on the top of page 14. Various links can be found in those posts). And you still have yet to answer those refutations successfully. In addition, there have been several papers most notably Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012 and Watson, Fletcher, Marshall, 2011 that have extend the data of Livingston and Penn, along with overturning some of their conclusions.

    As a short list:
    The original study only used 906 data points, with a large amount of scatter.
    The original study ignored the pores, even though they had to have at least a gauss of 1500 to appear.
    The range for the pores was 1600-2600 with an average of 2100. This would have changed the rate of decline.
    The study had less than 14 data points from before the peak of cycle 23. The rest were from the decline of cycle 23. The 2010 study had some data points from the beginning of the rise of cycle 24.
    Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012 found a cyclical nature to the weakening of sunspot field strengths. Something both Livingston and Penn in 2010 and Penn & McDonald in 2007 found hints of and mentioned. This means that the magnetic field strengths declines during the decline phase of the cycle and get stronger during the rise phase.
    Livingston and Penn, 2010; Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012; and Penn & McDonald, 2007 all found an increase in the magnetic field strength in 2007 (Livingston and Penn and Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt also found an increase in 2008 and after a small decline in 2009 another increase in 2010. There is no linear decline as you keep saying. There is a linear function, with a declining trend, as Livingston and Penn are using a least squares fit to the data.

    I also noticed that you again completely ignored my refutations of your last 5-6 posts. Since you continue to not refute my points, does this mean that you have conceded those points?

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    The past sunspot count was based on a visual count of the number of sunspots.

    Due to the declining magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots, the sunspots are “disappearing”. The sunspots count is now based on magnetic measurements to find the sunspots. The consequence of the change in counting sunspots is it no longer possible to compare the past sunspot count to the current sunspot count. i.e. The sunspot count of the sun would be lower if the past visual counting measuring technique was used.

    There is other observational evidence that a significant solar magnetic cycle change is underway. The sunspots are visually different. The solar large scale polar field is significantly less than past cycles. The number of sunspotless days during the decline of cycle 23 and the start of solar cycle 24 was at record levels.

    http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-...type=Continuum

    This site changed roughly a year ago to color enhancement of the sunspots. Above is a link to a visual only view of the sun. I provide the two links to illustrate the point.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/A...20510_hres.jpg

    The solar heliosphere (solar heliosphere is the name for the pieces of magnetic flux from sunspot remnants that the solar wind pushes off into through space) deflects galactic cosmic ray (high speed protons) thereby reducing the number of galactic cosmic rays (galactic cosmic rays is historic name for high speed mostly protons that created by super nova explosions) that strike the earth.

    The high speed protons, “galactic cosmic rays” GCR, when they strike the earth’s atmosphere create ions and isotopes. By analyzing the changes to the cosmogenic isotopes (isotopes that are created by GCR) it is possible to determine how the sun and solar heliosphere has changed in the past.

    As noted in this paper the sun was at its highest activity level in 8000 years from 1940 to around 2005. There are cycles of grand solar maximums that are followed by grand solar minimums in the cosmogenic record.

    There are papers that have predicted the sun is moving to a Maunder minimum based an analysis of the past cycles of changes recorded in the cosmogenic isotopes and based on a physical solar model.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf


    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years


    Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.
    Comments:
    1) The above paper looked at changes to the total solar irradiation (TSI) and found that changes to TSI could not explain the 20th century warming. There are other hypothesized mechanisms however by which solar changes could affect planetary temperature. (See above in this thread for details.) There are papers that allege the solar magnetic cycle does not affect planetary climate. There are other papers that allege the solar magnetic cycle does affect planetary climate. The CERN research supports the ion mediated nucleation. There are cycles of cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with past climate changes. There are peculiar unexplained cyclic abrupt climate changes in the paleorecord that correlate with the cyclic solar changes. There is evidence that solar wind bursts remove ions from the atmosphere. The solar wind bursts also disturb the geomagnetic field. There are records of the geomagnetic field back to around 1850. There is a 40 to 50% increase in geomagnetic field disturbances comparing the late 19th century to twentieth century. The point is counting the number of sunspots is an indirect method. The number of sunspots may or may not correlate with solar wind bursts. If the mechanisms are not understood the analysis could be going in circles jumping from one incorrect hypothesis to another.
    2) The entire subject of ion mediate nucleation, electroscavenging, and what does or does not modulate low level clouds and cirrus clouds is complicated and unresolved.
    3) If there is a change to the solar magnetic cycle perhaps there will be observational evidence (a change in temperature or no change in temperature) to resolve this question. Until there is I am not interested in discussing this subject due to the controversy associated with climate and as scientific discussion goes in circles if the mechanisms are not understood.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL035442.shtml
    For how long will the current grand maximum of solar activity persist?
    J. A. Abreu,1 J. Beer,1 F. Steinhilber,1 S. M. Tobias,2 and N. O. Weiss3
    Received 7 August 2008; revised 26 September 2008; accepted 30 September 2008; published 30 October 2008
    Understanding the Sun’s magnetic activity is important because of its impact on the Earth’s environment. The sunspot record since 1610 shows irregular 11-year cycles of activity; they are modulated on longer timescales and were interrupted by the Maunder minimum in the 17th century. Future behavior cannot easily be predicted – even in the short-term. Recent activity has been abnormally high for at least 8 cycles: is this grand maximum likely to terminate soon or even to be followed by another (Maunder-like) grand minimum?


    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...605L..81B

    Long-Term Solar Variability and the Solar Cycle in the 21st Century

    We have examined the long-term trends in the solar variability that can be deduced from some indirect data and from optical records. We analyzed the radiocarbon measurements for the last 4500 years, based on dendrochronology, the Schove series for the last 1700 years, based on auroral records, and the Hoyt-Schatten series of group sunspot numbers. Focusing on periodicities near one and two centuries, which most likely have a solar origin, we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in the long-term solar variability. There are some clues that the next minimum will be less deep than the Maunder minimum, but ultimately the relative depth between these two minima will be indicative of the amplitude change of the quasi-two-century solar cycle.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD....34.0603S

    Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?

    My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using "solar dynamo precursor" methods, notably a "SODA" index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun's dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun's fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun's dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun's polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.

    The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a "Maunder" type of solar activity minimum - an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn't so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
    This is an interesting subject as there may be observational evidence to support one hypothesis, over another. The observations may also resolve questions related to the fundamental mechanisms.

  15. #615
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,310
    I think I saw the big spot this afternoon. The sunlight was attenuated looking through the pollution here in Southern Iraq so I could look directly at it. At first, I thought it was just something in my eye until I realised it was staying where it was.

  16. #616
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The past sunspot count was based on a visual count of the number of sunspots.

    Due to the declining magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots, the sunspots are “disappearing”.
    The declining field strength you keep claiming has nothing to do with it, because you haven't shown, other than just posting the 2006 paper by Livingston and Penn. When are you actually going to answer the refutations I've posted on Livingston and Penn? From my last post #613:

    As far as Livingston and Penn are concerned, I've refuted your presentation of their 2006 and 2010 papers in Post #521, 523, 529, 548, 562, 570, 581, 583, 595, and 601( Those interested can find post #521 on the top of page 14. Various links can be found in those posts). And you still have yet to answer those refutations successfully. In addition, there have been several papers most notably Rezaei, Beck & Schmidt, 2012 and Watson, Fletcher, Marshall, 2011 (Links to these two papers can be found in post #595) that have extend the data of Livingston and Penn, along with overturning some of their conclusions.

    And yet you continue to insist that the field strength is decreasing, without answering the refutations (12 of them now).

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The sunspots count is now based on magnetic measurements to find the sunspots. The consequence of the change in counting sunspots is it no longer possible to compare the past sunspot count to the current sunspot count. i.e. The sunspot count of the sun would be lower if the past visual counting measuring technique was used.
    Actually, that's not true. Both the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC), in Belgium and the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) in the US use visual data in their counts. The Solar Terrestrial Activity Report(Star) publishes the SWPC count. That report also includes the count from The The Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager at the Solar Dynamics Observator (SDO/HMI) at both the 1k and 2k frequencies. Note that the magnetic counts ARE NOT the counts used in the official SWPC counts. Note 2A mentions this as follows:2A) Current impact on the monthly sunspot number based on the Boulder (NOAA/SWPC) sunspot number (accumulated daily sunspots / month days). The official SIDC international sunspot number is typically 30-50% lower. So the SIDC uses the visual counts also. Why do you continue to make claims that can be shown to be false so easily?

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    There is other observational evidence that a significant solar magnetic cycle change is underway. The sunspots are visually different. The solar large scale polar field is significantly less than past cycles. The number of sunspotless days during the decline of cycle 23 and the start of solar cycle 24 was at record levels.

    http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-...type=Continuum
    And your link to pictures is proof of this, how? Where in those pictures is the large scale polar field? How do those pictures show the number of spotless days? How do the pictures show the sunspots are visually different?

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    This site changed roughly a year ago to color enhancement of the sunspots. Above is a link to a visual only view of the sun. I provide the two links to illustrate the point.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/A...20510_hres.jpg
    Illustrate what? You make claims, but provide nothing but pictures that have nothing to do with your claim, or provide no comparison to anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The solar heliosphere (solar heliosphere is the name for the pieces of magnetic flux from sunspot remnants that the solar wind pushes off into through space) deflects galactic cosmic ray (high speed protons) thereby reducing the number of galactic cosmic rays (galactic cosmic rays is historic name for high speed mostly protons that created by super nova explosions) that strike the earth.

    The high speed protons, “galactic cosmic rays” GCR, when they strike the earth’s atmosphere create ions and isotopes. By analyzing the changes to the cosmogenic isotopes (isotopes that are created by GCR) it is possible to determine how the sun and solar heliosphere has changed in the past.

    As noted in this paper the sun was at its highest activity level in 8000 years from 1940 to around 2005. There are cycles of grand solar maximums that are followed by grand solar minimums in the cosmogenic record.

    There are papers that have predicted the sun is moving to a Maunder minimum based an analysis of the past cycles of changes recorded in the cosmogenic isotopes and based on a physical solar model.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
    Actually, there are papers that show problems with your linked paper Besides showing problems with the correlations, the Muscheler paper does bring up a good point. During the Maunder minimum, the Sun was vritually spotless, but even your link shows the 14C continued to vary. Suggesting that there were other causes to the 14C variation, as pointed out by Muscheler. And none of the papers you present talk of a Maunder Minimum. They speak of a Maunder Like event for Cycle 25, (or, in the case of one paper you presented as evidence, the possibility of a Maunder Like cycle within the next 40 years, which could mean not until cycle 27 or 28).

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Comments:
    The above paper looked at changes to the total solar irradiation (TSI) and found that changes to TSI could not explain the 20th century warming. There are other hypothesized mechanisms however by which solar changes could affect planetary temperature. (See above in this thread for details.) There are papers that allege the solar magnetic cycle does not affect planetary climate. There are other papers that allege the solar magnetic cycle does affect planetary climate.
    Alledged, that is all they do. You have brought this up before, and it has been soundly refuted several time. Here, where the thread was closed, according to the moderator, for this subject being ATM and you having brought it up twice before, using the same papers and arguments that had been refuted. Anyone who is interested can also find the refutations in this thread, in multiple places.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The CERN research supports the ion mediated nucleation.
    What it doesn’t support is any link to cloud formation or climate changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    There are cycles of cosmogenic isotope changes that correlate with past climate changes. There are peculiar unexplained cyclic abrupt climate changes in the paleorecord that correlate with the cyclic solar changes. There is evidence that solar wind bursts remove ions from the atmosphere. The solar wind bursts also disturb the geomagnetic field. There are records of the geomagnetic field back to around 1850. There is a 40 to 50% increase in geomagnetic field disturbances comparing the late 19th century to twentieth century. The point is counting the number of sunspots is an indirect method.
    And there are also changes in the Earth's magnetic field that can cause changes in the isotopes. Muscheler's paper is a good example.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The number of sunspots may or may not correlate with solar wind bursts. If the mechanisms are not understood the analysis could be going in circles jumping from one incorrect hypothesis to another.
    You have a propensity to post a hypothesis, have it refuted, then repost it at some later time, ignoring the refutation. But, reposting another hypothesis, that has been refuted before.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The entire subject of ion mediate nucleation, electroscavenging, and what does or does not modulate low level clouds and cirrus clouds is complicated and unresolved.
    It is not unresolved. Ari Jomanski has a web page dedicated to papers refuting the subject . This has been pointed out to your before in this thread . Ari’s page is linked in post 41. Ari also points out you have used the same papers, prior to even this thread. All of which have been refuted prior to this also.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    3) If there is a change to the solar magnetic cycle perhaps there will be observational evidence (a change in temperature or no change in temperature) to resolve this question. Until there is I am not interested in discussing this subject due to the controversy associated with climate and as scientific discussion goes in circles if the mechanisms are not understood.

    This is an interesting subject as there may be observational evidence to support one hypothesis, over another. The observations may also resolve questions related to the fundamental mechanisms.
    If you’re not interested in discussing the subject, why do you bring up the assertions that are considered ATM(several of your comments above have been in the ATM section here). You have, in the past, made assertions, then when forced by moderation to actually answer questions about or support those assertions, you simply say you have nothing else to say. Here is one example. Here is another. Here is yet another. If you don’t want to discuss it, or answer challenges to your claims. Why do you bring them up?

  17. #617
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319

    William, if you want your thread/ideas to be taken seriously, that means that you have to take the objections by other members seriously. Just keep on making the same claims (e.g. declining B field) without actually addressing the comments that are made about those claims by various posters is not the way for a fruitful and eventually interesing discussion.

    In your next post you will seriously engage your opponents, and actually answer questions that are put to you. And please do not come with your "good-for-all" answer that we will have to wait for more data, because I doubt that the authors of the papers you seem to like so very much would have written those papers with that kind of attitude.

    If you do not start following this advice you will be infracted.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  18. #618
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,956
    Thank-you for the thoughtful comments. I have nothing to say.

  19. #619
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,319

    Well then, thread closed.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

Similar Threads

  1. Solar Cycle 24 Update
    By William in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-06, 02:11 AM
  2. The Next Solar Cycle is Nearly Upon Us
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-07, 02:06 AM
  3. The next solar cycle.
    By NEOWatcher in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-27, 06:42 PM
  4. Solar cycle
    By Pursuer in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-07, 09:03 AM
  5. Solar Flare Cycle
    By Fossa_Riot in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-30, 07:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •