Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 619

Thread: Solar cycle #24

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Sunspot Magnetic field is Decaying

    In reply to George's comment:

    Livingston is a solar veteran, and perhaps Penn is, too. I wonder if anything new has come forth since this 2006 work?
    Hi George,

    Thanks for the link to Livingston & Penn’s paper. It appears that analysis of new spectral data to determine sunspot magnetic field strength (2006 to present) continues to support Livingston and Penn’s finding that the sunspot magnetic field is falling linearly at 77 gauss per year. (The last data point may be some what lower than the trend line. I hope the authors update their paper and get it published.)

    L. Svalgaard (A physicist/solar researcher.) had this comment concerning Livingston's data and analysis 2006 to present.

    There was a tiny pore on Aug 22nd, 2008. Bill Livingston measured its magnetic field and tells me today that it was 1931 Gauss. You may verify for yourself that that falls straight on his projected line. BTW, he has many other data points now between the last data shown on the plot and this latest one, and they also confirm the trend...
    This again is a copy of the graph from Livingston and Penn's paper. (Copied to show how the new data falls exactly the trend line.)



    The following is a further quote from Livingston and Penn's paper.

    From the work of Kopp and Rabin (8) and others there is a relationship within individual sunspots between the magnetic field strength and the plasma temperature, following from the pressure balance required to maintain a sunspot structure. The temporal changes that we observe over this 15 year period do not violate the relationships that are observed within single sunspots. So as the mean magnetic field strengths in sunspots are observed to weaken, the temperatures are observed to change in the expected manner. The same holds true for the observed changes in the OH line depths and continuum temperature.

    So it appears that the physics operating within sunspots is not changing, rather that sunspots with different magnetic field strengths are being formed on the Sun.

    We are not aware of any satisfactory physical basis for this change. Interesting recent work by Norton and Gilman (9) show that sunspot brightness is tied to the Sun’s internal toroidal field. Unfortunately their model is coupled to the 11 year cycle and has the spots darkening with time, but certainly the temporal changes observed in our data hold important clues to the mechanisms at work in the solar magnetic dynamo. Finally, observations of this type during the onset of the next sunspot cycle will be critical in determining if the observed trends continue.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    38 Continual Spotless Days

    Solar cycle 23/24 has reached the fifteenth spot for the longest period of solar spotless days.

    38 continual spotless days, August 28, 2008, is the 15th longest period of continual spotless days on record for the period 1849 to present.

    50 continual spotless days is required to make the top 4 for the 160 year period, which was set in 1902 and 1855.

    Greater than 92 continual spotless days, is required to break the 160 year record, which was set in 1913.

    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/S.../Spotless.html

    http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    TSI has dropped by about 2 w/m^2.

    TSI changes due to recent changes in the Solar Magnetic cycle

    Based on the most recent data it looks like the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has dropped from cycle 23’s peak of 1367 w/m^2 to 1365 w/m^2 which is a drop of 2 watts/m^2 over the surface of the planet. (Comparison GHG warming is estimated to be 2.5 watts/m^2).

    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradi...61_0808_vg.pdf

    If cycle 24 is the start of a deep solar minimum (i.e. there is no longer a solar magnetic cycle) will the TSI remain at 1365 w/m^2?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,349
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    TSI changes due to recent changes in the Solar Magnetic cycle

    Based on the most recent data it looks like the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has dropped from cycle 23’s peak of 1367 w/m^2 to 1365 w/m^2 which is a drop of 2 watts/m^2 over the surface of the planet. (Comparison GHG warming is estimated to be 2.5 watts/m^2).

    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradi...61_0808_vg.pdf

    If cycle 24 is the start of a deep solar minimum (i.e. there is no longer a solar magnetic cycle) will the TSI remain at 1365 w/m^2?
    I recall that a 1% variation is normal, but this seems to be slightly greater. Any idea where this energy is reduced within the spectrum?
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    I recall that a 1% variation is normal, but this seems to be slightly greater. Any idea where this energy is reduced within the spectrum?
    Try 0.1% and it’s pretty much across the entire spectrum, but of course since most solar energy arrives as visible light it’s most noticeable in the visible spectrum.

    This small variation is why “solar cycles effect on the earths climate” are basically exercises in numerology. The Sun is remarkably stable; variation in the actual energy output of the sun is far too small to overcome the thermal inertia of the earths oceans.

    People like William try to counter with “well maybe there is some effect we can’t observe directly that has nothing to do with the suns energy output” But if it doesn’t show up in direct observation and is unrelated to the suns major function in the earths climate (providing all the incoming energy) how big a role could it play?

    There are two ways an open system like the earths climate can heat up/cool down. Either you can change the energy getting in or you can change the energy that gets out, and the two have distinctly different characteristics. Changes in Solar energy output, and changes in the earths albedo both fall into the former category, they change the amount of solar energy making it into the system. Greenhouse effects like CO2 restrict the energy that gets out.

    If you change the amount of energy getting in you would feel the effects where sunlight is the strongest, in day, in lower latitudes, and in summer. In the case of increased energy in you would also see warming in the stratosphere. On the other hand changes in the amount of energy trapped mean you see warming in high latitudes, at night and in the winter. In the case where more energy is trapped you would see cooling in the Stratosphere. All of the latter effects have been observed in 20th century warming.

    In addition you can also measure the sunlight making it to the ground, which is effectively the amount of energy making it into the earth’s atmosphere. This is something people have been measuring for decades. In large part due to human produced aerosols the amount of solar radiation making it to the ground and becoming heat has been decreasing for decades, at the very same time as the actual temperature is warming’s.

    The only thing that could cause the earth to warm when less heat energy is entering the system is a greenhouse effect that is even stronger then the solar dimming. The fact that dimming has been observed at ground level also excludes any albedo effect from causing the warming.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,349
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    Try 0.1% and it’s pretty much across the entire spectrum, but of course since most solar energy arrives as visible light it’s most noticeable in the visible spectrum.
    I believe this is true only of the visible portion of the specturm and not of the entire spectrum. I vaguely recall some variations within the spectrum to be as much as 30%. [I'll look this up later when time allows.]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by George View Post
    I believe this is true only of the visible portion of the specturm and not of the entire spectrum. I vaguely recall some variations within the spectrum to be as much as 30%. [I'll look this up later when time allows.]
    I seem to recall some claim that changes in the UV part of the spectrum where greater, which may be possible. The sun basically emits its energy as a blackbody, so more energy should results in slightly higher frequency, but 0.1% is so small it shouldn’t change very much.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Solar Magnetic Cycle Appears to Have Been Interrupted. Effects?

    In reply to lomiller1,

    The change to TSI, 2 w/m^2 is 2/1365 or .15% which should have a relatively small effect on planetary temperature. Expected changes to the total solar irradiation (TSI) will have a minor affect on planetary temperature changes, if they continue to stay +/- 0.15%. That is not how the solar change are hypothesized to effect planetary temperature, however. The sun has a first order effect on planetary temperature by direct and indirect modulation of planetary cloud cover not TSI changes. Based on the data and analysis I have seen, it seems that assertion is correct.

    See these links for paleo evidence, satellite data, earthshine data, and a set of associated published papers that support the assertion that changes to the solar magnetic cycle, modulate planetary clouds which warm or cool the planet.

    http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...ml#post1152143

    http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...ml#post1150450

    http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/6...ml#post1154760

    Did you see the Livingston and Penn's paper and graph above? The solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted (See Livingston and Penn’s graph and paper above), this winter and over the next few years the cloud modulation hypothesis will either be proved correct or incorrect.

    Comments:
    It appears based on paleo data (different sources) that there is a deeper solar minimum where the solar magnetic cycle is completely interrupted. Based on Parker’s mechanism where the sunspot magnetic ropes are created in the tachocline, without a magnetic seed, the magnetic rope cannot form and there is no sunspot. The evidence points to a violent restart of that type of interruption. It is not clear at this time, whether the cycle 23/24 solar event is a Maunder minimum or an extreme complete interruption.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,349
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Based on Parker’s mechanism where the sunspot magnetic ropes are created in the tachocline, without a magnetic seed, the magnetic rope cannot form and there is no sunspot. The evidence points to a violent restart of that type of interruption.
    I this a calm before the storm? Was this magnetic calm predicted given that a more intense maximum has been predicted?
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The sun has a first order effect on planetary temperature by direct and indirect modulation of planetary cloud cover not TSI changes.
    That’s speculative and currently untestable due to the large uncertainty in even measuring cloud formation. What we do know is that the major climate shifts of the last 5 million years, the onset and end of glaciations have nothing whatsoever to do with changes in the sun.

    Also, stop and think a bit on what you are saying. Effectively you are claiming that the Sun is a massive energy source and therefore must have some effect that is too small for use to measure. The whole claim is inherently self-contradictory.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Effects of Deep Solar Magnetic Cycle Minimum - Increased Clouds & Cooling?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by William View Post
    The sun has a first order effect on planetary temperature by direct and indirect modulation of planetary cloud cover not TSI changes.
    Originally Posted by lomiller1:
    That’s speculative and currently untestable due to the large uncertainty in even measuring cloud formation. What we do know is that the major climate shifts of the last 5 million years, the onset and end of glaciations have nothing whatsoever to do with changes in the sun.
    lomiller,
    I provided links to multiple papers (See my comment above.) that showed past sever cooling periods correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. I provided links to papers that explain in detail how the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover, function. I provided links to Palle's satellite paper and earthshine paper both of which support the mechanism. I believe the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud is not speculative. (i.e. There is data and logic to support the hypothesis.)

    Could the authors of those papers be incorrect? Yes possibly, however, as noted the recent finding by Kaplan et al. that there was in the past, multiple periods of synchronous cooling of both northern and southern hemispheres, provides additional support for the solar cloud modulation mechanism. (Kaplan specifically notes that his group's finding falsifies the Milankovitch theory for what causes ice ages.)

    What is odd (surreal?) is the sun appears as we are discussing this subject to be quickly moving into a deep minimum. We will over the next year or so be able to witness, if the cloud modulation hypothesis is correct, the start of an abrupt cooling period.

    Let's wait until there is more data. The oceans have stopped warming. If the cloud modulation hypothesis is correct the oceans will start cooling by this time next year. There is uncertainty as to how much of the 20th century warming was due to GHG and how much was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. That issue will not be settled until there is more data.

    If the data does not support the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds, there will certainly be papers written documenting that finding. Regardless, of the outcome, I will appropriately update this thread with the findings and attempt to be neutral.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Effects of Deep Solar Minimum - Extreme Solar Flares?

    In reply to George's comment:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by William View Post
    Based on Parker’s mechanism where the sunspot magnetic ropes are created in the tachocline, without a magnetic seed, the magnetic rope cannot form and there is no sunspot. The evidence points to a violent restart of that type of interruption.
    Originally Posted by George View Post
    Is this a calm before the storm? Was this magnetic calm predicted given that a more intense maximum has been predicted?
    Yes possibly. There is evidence of past extreme solar flares.

    This paper presents an analysis of Apollo data, that the author believes indicates that there have been solar flares roughly 50 times greater than the typical maximum, in the last 10 kyr.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977Icar...32..106Z

    An analysis of radar and photographic meteor data and of spacecraft meteoroid- penetration data indicates that there probably has not been a large increase in meteoroid impact rates in the last 10,000 yr. The solar-flare tracks observed in the glass linings of meteoroid impact pits on lunar rock 15205 are therefore reanalyzed assuming a meteoroid flux that is constant in time. Based on this assumption, the data suggest that the production rate of Fe-group solar-flare tracks may have varied by as much as a factor of 50 on a time scale of about 10,000 yr. (my bold.) No independently obtained data are known to require conflict with this interpretation. Confidence in this conclusion is somewhat qualified by the experimental and analytical uncertainties involved, but the conclusion nevertheless remains the present 'best' explanation for the observed data trends.
    http://authors.aps.org/eprint/files/...004/Models.htm

    And other authors have tried to explain anomalous variations in the geomagnetic field due to very energy solar flares.

    Support for the Wolfendale/Zook and Brackenridge Hypotheses:
    Arnold Wolfendale and a colleague proposed a model of known solar activity which hypothesized giant solar flares at intervals of 100,000 years, and consequent extinctions when the earth's magnetic field was low (32) (my bold). Wolfendale implies that the necessary observable consequences of such an event are tracks from particles preserved in deep sea sediments or on the lunar surface (33). He predicted the recovery of tracks in some medium. Herbert Zook hypothesized greatly increased past solar flare activity at about 12,000 years ago based on a threefold increase in 14C abundance in surface layers of lunar rocks, and on track densities of possibly iron nuclei in lunar rocks which indicated increased solar flare production (one big event, or a series) by a factor of 50 at a recent prior time (34) (my bold). There was the suggestion that what "looked like" the tracks of iron nuclei were actually tracks of other particles at different energies (i.e., size/speed equations)(35).

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Deep Solar Minimum - Shockwave Irradiation, Atmospheric Flashing?

    During the Younger Dryas period (12900 years ago. Named after a tundra flower that is suddenly found in Europe as the interglacial period is abruptly interrupted and the planet returned to the glacial period for roughly a 1000 years.) there is evidence from geological studies of widespread high energy flash burns in different parts of the US (Around the Great lakes region and also in Germany.) It is known that the sun was in a very deep magnetic minimum at the time of the Younger Dryas.

    There are two theories to explain the widespread evidence of flashing (Very large areas are burnt with all vegetation burnt. i.e. Not a forest fire. Flashing, like multiple nuclear bombs exploding at very high altitude.):

    1) Giant solar flares or 2) an impact of an extra-terrestrial object. There is no impact crater however and the finding of burnt regions in Germany in addition to North America is difficult to explain from the standpoint of an extra-terrestrial object. (Those advocating the impact theory hypothesize that there were multiple objects that hit a glancing blow to the earth.) The fact that the sun was in a deep solar magnetic minimum at the time would then only be coincidence, however, there is the Apollo data which supports the assertion that the sun does have from time to time super flares.

    http://authors.aps.org/eprint/files/...004/Models.htm

    The following is an additional excerpt from the super flare summary:

    Additional Consequences of Shockwave-associated Irradiation:

    The cluster of young Paleo-Indian radiocarbon dates in Eastern North America centers in the Great Lakes region. This cluster correlates with the highest density of particles and particle tracks and impact pits, the highest rates of plutonium production in artifacts, and the evidence from the Carolina Bays. This overall pattern matches the pattern of mass extinctions in pre-Holocene times. The Western hemisphere was more affected than the Eastern, North America more affected than South America, and Eastern North America more than Western North America 37, 38, 39, 40. Extinctions in the Great Lakes region of North America were more rapid and pronounced than elsewhere. Larger animals were more affected than smaller ones 41, 42; that pattern conforms to the effects of radiation exposure in which larger bodies are more affected than smaller ones. The possibility of collateral catastrophic mutations in plant life at the same time is relevant. Maize probably resulted from a macro-mutation 43, 44. Plant domestication of what might be mutated forms appears on a worldwide basis after Late Glacial times. In particular, there was a rapid transition from wild grains to domesticates in the Near East region45. Pre-Holocene mass extinctions apparently occurred at a date that approaches 11,000 bp and domesticated grains appear at about the same time. This time frame matches the Paleo-Indian period, and closely corresponds chronologically with the evidence presented above.
    This is the paper that discusses the impact theory and presents some of the geological data.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full.pdf+html
    Last edited by William; 2008-Aug-31 at 05:06 AM. Reason: Grammatical

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,237
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    1) Giant solar flares or 2) an impact of an extra-terrestrial object. There is no impact crater
    I recently watched a program that made a pretty plausible case that the impact happened on the multiple-mile-thick ice sheet and the crater disappeared with the ice.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    lomiller,
    I provided links to multiple papers (See my comment above.) that showed past sever cooling periods correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.
    What “sever cooling events”? Ice ages? Nope those are caused by Milankovitch cycles. Youger Dryas? Nope, we already have 2 theories that are a much better fit for that then your solar cycles. At best these papers show minor climate effects that are dwarfed by those caused by Milankovitch cycles + CO2 feedback. At worst they are artifacts of data and don’t represent anything physical at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    lomiller,
    I provided links to papers that explain in detail how the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes are hypothesized to modulate planetary cloud cover, function.
    But that hypothesis isn’t currently testable due to the large error range in measuring cloud formation. It also isn’t required to explain large climate changes.

    Hypothesis that are not needed to explain the data and are not testable don’t hold much weight. There is a reason papers are published every day based on papers regarding the effects of greenhouse gasses and Milankovitch cycles while there is virtually no practical follow up work based on your solar cycles.


    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post

    Let's wait until there is more data. The oceans have stopped warming.
    Indeed, lets wait for more data. One or two years of relatively flat ocean heat content doesn’t alter the century long trend of the oceans warming up. There is after all a certain amount of natural year to year variation. You should also consider the possibility of still more measurement error, given that the so called “ocean cooling” has been adjusted upwards once already and is still in disagreement with rising sea levels, whose primary cause remains thermal expansion.

    BTW, a dramatic increase in ice sheet movement could explain both sets of data. The ice causes the continued sea level rise, while the energy required to melt it explains the flat trend in ocean temperatures. Not much has been done with this yet because there is still no statistically significant change in ocean trends, but if the flat ocean temperatures are part of a trend ask yourself what’s melting that ice…


    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post

    There is uncertainty as to how much of the 20th century warming was due to GHG and how much was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. That issue will not be settled until there is more data.
    Even if there really are such solar cycles occurring, we know that they are minuscule otherwise Milankovitch cycles would not be the dominant climate driver over the last 5 million years. So, no there is no debate over how much effect solar cycles had on climate over the last 100 years. Some warming between 1900-1930 has been attributed to increases in the suns energy output, but no one has found anything beyond that.

    Originally from Meehl et al. 2004:


  16. #76
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    During the Younger Dryas period (12900 years ago. Named after a tundra flower that is suddenly found in Europe as the interglacial period is abruptly interrupted and the planet returned to the glacial period for roughly a 1000 years.) there is evidence from geological studies of widespread high energy flash burns in different parts of the US (Around the Great lakes region and also in Germany.) It is known that the sun was in a very deep magnetic minimum at the time of the Younger Dryas.
    Younger dryas effects are not thought to be global. Comet impact or solar flairs or comet impact certainly would be global in nature. This is why current thinking is that it was caused by a massive meltwater pulse into the artic ocean. This would cause warm water from the gulf stream that warms much of north America and Europe to sink further south for a time and cause significant regional cooling for a thousand years or so.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Younger Dryas Flash Burning Across Continential US?

    In reply to aurora's comment:

    Originally Posted by aurora View Post: I recently watched a program that made a pretty plausible case that the impact happened on the multiple-mile-thick ice sheet and the crater disappeared with the ice.
    Hi Aurora,

    Check figure 9 from the paper that shows where in the US that the flashing occurred. There are magnetic microspherules found in Carolina Bay, along the east coast of the US (in the State of Carolina) in addition to magnetic microspherules in the Lake Michigan region. As shown in figure 9 of the paper the flash burn areas are hundreds and in the case of the Carolina Bay site (In the State of Carolina) thousands of miles below the extent of the ice sheet at that time.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7

    The authors of this paper do hypothesize that the continental US flash burning was due to multiple extra-terrestrial air burst events, to explain flash burning at Lake Michigan and in addition along the eastern coast of the US, in the state of Carolina. While that hypothesis is possible it requires multi extra-terrestrial impacts that burst in the atmosphere without leaving an impact crater.

    I note there is independent evidence in the Apollo moon rocks of solar flares 50 times current maximum in the last 10 kyrs which leaves open the possibility of the Younger Dryas being caused by a solar event. There is also evidence of cyclic external forcing of the geomagnetic field. To explain the geomagnetic field changes there would need to be periodic flashing which would depending on the tilt of the planet at the time of the flashing event and the last configuration of the geomagnetic field, constructively or de-constructively alter the geomagnetic field.

    To provide support for the Solar flare hypothesis, C14 data shows the sun at the time of the Younger Dryas cooling event was in a very deep magnetic cycle minimum.

    The following is an excerpt from the Younger Dryas paper that proposes the multiple extra-terrestrial air burst events as an explanation to the 12,900 years ago flashing events.

    A carbon-rich black layer, dating to approx.12.9 ka (12,900 calendar years B.P.) (1), has been identified by C. V. Haynes, Jr. (2), at approx. 50 sites across North America as black mats, carbonaceous silts, or dark organic clays [supporting information (SI) Fig. 5]. The age of the base of this black layer coincides with the abrupt onset of Younger Dryas (YD) cooling, after which there is no evidence for either in situ extinct megafaunal remains or Clovis artifacts. Increasing evidence suggests that the extinction of many mammalian and avian taxa occurred abruptly and perhaps catastrophically at the onset of the YD, and this extinction was pronounced in North America where at least 35 mammal genera disappeared (3), including mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, horses, and camels, along with birds and smaller mammals.
    We propose that the YD event resulted from multiple ET airbursts along with surface impacts. We further suggest that the catastrophic effects of this ET event and associated biomass burning led to abrupt YD cooling, contributed to the late Pleistocene megafaunal extinction, promoted human cultural changes, and led to immediate decline in some post-Clovis human populations (19).

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    500,000 Flashing Sites Along Atlantic Coast New Jersey to Alabama, 12,900 yr BP

    In reply to Aurora,

    There is additional data in the paper which I did see. As the paper notes, there is evidence of approximately 1/2 million flash burning sites along the US coast from New Jersey to Alabama.

    This is a significant event and I do not see how it could possibly have been caused by extra-terrestrial air bursts. Look at figure 7 (which is a close up of one the flash burning sites.) The spacing is far too close between flashing sites, there are far too many flashing sites, for the cause of this event to be extra-terrestrial air bursts.

    Could someone else from the forum have a look at this data?

    I had no idea that there was this type of evidence associated with the Younger Dryas flash event.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7

    Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. The Bayshave been contrast-enhanced and selectively darkened for greater clarity. The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long. Previous researchers have proposed that the Bays are impact-related features.

    Carolina Bays. The Carolina Bays are a group of »500,000 highly elliptical and often overlapping depressions scattered throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Alabama (my bolding) (see SI Fig. 7). They range from ≈50 m to ≈10 km in length (10) and are up to ≈15 m deep with their parallel long axes oriented predominately to the northwest. The Bays have poorly stratified, sandy, elevated rims (up to 7 m) that often are higher to the southeast. All of the Bay rims examined were found to have, throughout their entire 1.5- to 5-m sandy rims, a typical assemblage of YDB markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, Ir, charcoal, soot, glass-like carbon, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, and fullerenes with 3He). In Howard Bay, markers were concentrated throughout the rim, as well as in a discrete layer (15 cm thick) located 4 m deep at the base of the basin fill and containing peaks in magnetic microspherules and magnetic grains that are enriched in Ir (15 ppb), along with peaks in charcoal, carbon spherules, and glass-like carbon. In two Bay-lakes, Mattamuskeet and Phelps, glass-like carbon and peaks in magnetic grains (16-17 g/kg) were found ≈4 m below the water surface and 3 m deep in sediment that is younger than a marine shell hash that dates to the ocean highstand of the previous interglacial.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    12,900 years BP, Flashing Evidence Throughout the Northern Hemisphere

    I was looking through the appendix of the Younger Dryas paper and was surprised that in addition to the ˝ million flash residues, highly elliptically, 50m to 10 km in length, with axises that point in the North west direction, that are located in the region of eastern US, from New Jersey to Alabama, there is flash residue outside of the Canadian cities of Calgary and Edmonton, there is flash residue in the Great Lakes region in Michigan, in Arizona, there is flash residue in Great Britain, Netherlands, Germany, France, Demark, and Poland. The flashing evidence 12,900 years ago appears to be throughout the Northern Hemisphere.

    I do not see how extra-terrestrial objects that burst in the atmosphere could possible explain these observations. An extra-terrestrial burst could only effect one region of North America. An extra-terrestrial burst could not possibly have left flash residue at 1/2 million sites from New Jersey to North Carolina. An extra-terrestrial burst could not have affect both North America and Europe. It seems that the evidence of overlapping residue indicates that was time delay between flashing events.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7

    Chobot. Chobot is Southwest of Edmonton, AB, Canada. In Clovis times, it was located along the shore of a proglacial lake, where a supply of quality flint attracted hunter-gatherers. The presence of Clovis artifacts (5) dates this level to an interval of approx. 200 yr ending at 12,925 cal B.P. (6). The Clovis level is capped by the YDB layer, above which there is a black mat similar to other sites. The YDB sediment samples are mostly fine-grained and colluvial.
    Fig. 8. Lommel (1) is in northern Belgium, near the border with the Netherlands. At 12.94 ka (2), this site was a large late Glacial sand ridge covered by open forest at the northern edge of a marsh. ….Then, just before the Younger Dryas began, a thin layer of bleached sand was deposited and, in turn, was covered by the dark layer marked "YDB" above. That stratum is called the Usselo Horizon and is composed of fine to medium quartz sands rich in charcoal. The dark Usselo Horizon is stratigraphically equivalent to the YDB layer and contains a similar assemblage of impact markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, iridium, charcoal, and glass-like carbon). The magnetic grains have a high concentration of Ir (117 ppb), which is the highest value measured for all sites yet analyzed. On the other hand, YDB bulk sediment analyses reveal Ir values below the detection limit of 0.5 ppb, suggesting that the Ir carrier is in the magnetic grain fraction. The abundant charcoal in this black layer suggests widespread biomass burning. A similar layer of charcoal, found at many other sites in Europe, including the Netherlands (3), Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, and Poland (4), also dates to the onset of the Younger Dryas (12.9 ka) and, hence, correlates with the YDB layer in North America.
    Carolina Bays. The Carolina Bays are a group of approx. 500,000 highly elliptical and often overlapping depressions scattered throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Alabama (see SI Fig. 7). They range from approx. 50 m to approx. 10 km in length (10) and are up to approx. 15 m deep with their parallel long axes oriented predominately to the northwest. ….YDB markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, Ir, charcoal, soot, glass-like carbon, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, and fullerenes with 3He).
    Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. The Bays have been contrast-enhanced and selectively darkened for greater clarity. The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long. Previous researchers have proposed that the Bays are impact-related features.

  20. #80
    Where site can I go to check each day for spots?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    10,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Mason Dixon View Post
    Where site can I go to check each day for spots?
    I like SOHO. [It has an extremely rare image -- an accurate color depiction of the Sun (it is probably just a b & w, but I still like it! ).]
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Sunspot Data

    These two sites provide a summary of the sunspot data.

    http://www.dxlc.com/solar/

    There is some controversy for cycle 24. The summary below shows cycle 24 starting in Aug. 2006 (There was one reversed sunspot Aug, 2006) other sources show it starting in Jan. 2008 (next reversed sunspot was in Jan. 2008.)


    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/S.../Spotless.html

    The sunspot count per day is 10 times # of sunspot groups observed + number of sunspots in the group.

  23. 2008-Sep-05, 07:38 PM
    Reason
    DNS resolution issue

  24. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,874

    Solar Wind at 50 year Low

    The solar wind is at a 50 year low. There is a planned news conference Tuesday, September 23rd to discuss the implications.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008...conference.txt

    WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun's solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun's current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.

  25. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    The solar wind is at a 50 year low. There is a planned news conference Tuesday, September 23rd to discuss the implications.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008...conference.txt

    WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun's solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun's current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.
    Thanks for the info William.

    Jim

  26. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    464

    New cycle spot today

    Orionjim, William,

    Thank you gentlemen for your insightful discussions. I am a newby to the forum. Astronomy is an avocation for me and since the peak of cycle 23 I have been keenly interested in solar science. I was contemplating purchasing a solar telescope for cycle 24 but it appears it may be far less spectacular than 23 in its viewing at least. I read today that a new cycle 24 sunspot is emerging. My question is: if the sun is trending to a minimum do you believe that the effects will be dampened by climate warming? Is this an opportunity for house cleaning ie decreasing our CO2 impact while in a natural cooling cycle? Would the two events occuring simultaneously cancel each other or amplify their effects?

  27. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by flynjack1 View Post
    My question is: if the sun is trending to a minimum do you believe that the effects will be dampened by climate warming? Is this an opportunity for house cleaning ie decreasing our CO2 impact while in a natural cooling cycle? Would the two events occuring simultaneously cancel each other or amplify their effects?
    It would not outweigh the greenhouse warming. There's a good article about it here.
    Thus if the sun remains “out”, i.e., stuck for a long period in the current solar minimum, it can offset only about 7 years of CO2 increase. The human-made greenhouse gas climate forcing is now relentlessly, monotonically, increasing at a rate that overwhelms variability of natural climate forcings. Unforced variability of global temperature is great, as shown in Figure 4, but the global temperature trend on decadal and longer time scales is now determined by the larger human-made climate forcing. Speculation that we may have entered a solar-driven long-term cooling trend must be dismissed as a pipe-dream.

  28. #87
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    464
    dmr81,
    Thanks for the link. All things being equall it appears it would have a short term effect, however as noted above by others there may be a hitch. Barry Brooks article addresses TSI influences to global temp, but does not address the hypothesis of GCR. Another problem is that the referenced charts cover only recent solar cycles and not those during a extended minimum. If albedo is influenced by GCR variations as speculated one could assume this might be more adverse than the small decrease in TSI would imply.

    The best part is, that if we are heading into an extended solar minimum, we will have opportunity to verify the influence of GCR's on cloud cover first hand and thus put this one to rest.

  29. #88
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    602
    Hello Jack,

    If you have followed the dialog between me and William you will see we differ on the start of a new minimum. William is fairly convinced it is starting now on cycle #24 and I believe the minimum will start at cycle #25. Although to be truthful I am getting a little worried that it might be starting now.

    I base my belief on cycle #25 being the start on: calculations I’ve done that fall into the ATM section and on predictions of two of the top solar scientists; NCAR’s Mausumi Dikpati and NASA’s David Hathaway. See: http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?I...tegory=Science .

    David Hathaway is saying cycle #25 will be off the charts to the low side, the start of a minimum.

    My question is: if the sun is trending to a minimum do you believe that the effects will be dampened by climate warming?
    That’s a great question. One needs to remember that cooling tied to a solar minimum is a theory and while the data shows a strong correlation of temperature to the sunspot cycles, long minimums like the Maunder Minimum are rare. This means you can’t say the correlations apply to these minimums. I personally believe they do and I have read some of David Hathaway’s work and he believes there will be a cooling. The exciting thing to me is we may soon know if the correlation applies to these minimums. It may only take 5 years if William is right or at most 10 to 15 years if Hathaway is correct.

    If the cooling happens and the minimum is similar to the Maunder Minimum, I think it will be greater than the warming we’ve seen by several degrees. And if the minimum is similar to the Maunder Minimum the cooler temperatures will last for 50 to 70 years. (This is a guess on my part because nobody knows for sure). Any average temperatures you see for the Maunder Minimum is nothing more than a guess. If you have followed the “Hockey Stick” debate you will know exactly what I mean. Lining up the average data is the problem and the same goes with The Medieval Warming period.

    Two things to remember is these types of changes happen frequently over the course of time and it won’t be the end of the human race and if co2 forcing is real it will help for the time the minimum lasts and then the climate will warm back to whatever normal was plus the effect of the co2 warming. (In other words co2 warming will help a little during the minimum but will be a problem when the minimum is over).

    Is this an opportunity for house cleaning ie decreasing our CO2 impact while in a natural cooling cycle?
    From what I understand CO2 stays in our atmosphere for ~1000 years and if the solar minimum lasts 50 years when it is over the problem will return.

    Would the two events occurring simultaneously cancel each other or amplify their effects?
    From what I think I know about the Greenhouse Effect they would tend to cancel each other out. It has to do with the long length of the infrared light wave coming in versus the much shorter wave bouncing off the earth back into our atmosphere and bouncing off the co2 back to earth.

    There is a 2 hour video series by Dr. Richard A. Muller on Youtube on global warming that is worth watching. It is actually broken up into 12 ten minute videos.
    This is the first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuKOtIryis
    (You will have to search for the others).

    As far as buying a solar telescope I would wait and see if cycle #24 starts to fire up, if it does I would buy it, knowing that after cycle #24 it will pretty much be useless. Of course your kids or grandkids may use it someday.

    Jim

  30. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by flynjack1 View Post
    Barry Brooks article addresses TSI influences to global temp, but does not address the hypothesis of GCR.
    Yes it does.
    Other mechanisms to amplify the solar forcing have been hypothesized, such as induced changes of atmospheric condensation nuclei and thus changes of cloud cover. However, if such mechanisms were effective, then an 11-year signal should appear in temperature observations (Figure 4). In fact a very weak solar signal in global temperature has been found by many investigators, but only of the magnitude (~0.1°C or less) expected due to the direct solar forcing.
    The GCR hypothesis is a wildly ATM idea. The proposed mechanism has several problems and it is falsified by the real world data, which shows no correlation.

  31. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
    See: http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?I...tegory=Science .

    David Hathaway is saying cycle #25 will be off the charts to the low side, the start of a minimum. [...] I have read some of David Hathaway’s work and he believes there will be a cooling.
    In the article to which you linked he did not say anything about cycle 25 and he stated that an extended minimum would not cause cooling:
    interviewer: I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WONDERING NOW IF THE SUN CONTINUES WITHOUT SUNSPOTS, WILL IT GET COOLER ON EARTH?

    Hathaway: It wouldn’t cause cooling, it just might decrease the rate at which the Earth is heating.
    Quote Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
    if co2 forcing is real
    Provide any evidence you have that it isn't real.

    Quote Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
    From what I think I know about the Greenhouse Effect they would tend to cancel each other out.
    But you know very little about the greenhouse effect as evidenced by the following hogwash...

    Quote Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
    It has to do with the long length of the infrared light wave coming in versus the much shorter wave bouncing off the earth back into our atmosphere and bouncing off the co2 back to earth.
    1) It is nothing to do with "bouncing off" in either direction. 2) Anything "bouncing off" would be at the same wavelength. 3) The energy re-radiated from the earth is at a longer wavelength than the incoming solar energy.

    A decent explanation of the greenhouse effect is available here.

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
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: