The world as we know it

Solar Cycle 24 – the spotless sun

The sun as of Saturday was spotless again for the first time in a month and a half. Solar cycle 24 has finally begun, relatively in earnest. Yet Livingston and Penn’s theory that the sun is declining in magnetism is also still holding true by observation. They claim that by 2015 the sun’s spots will have declined to such a level that there wont be any. Looking at the specks that get officially counted you would have to agree with this. Even moreso when viewing the layman’s sunspot count which is a lot more consistent, accurate and scientific on sunspots and shows that spotlessness (which results in less heat hitting the earth from the sun) is decreasing even more than the Institutions would have us believe. The sun is currently quieter than it has been in over a century and is mimicking previous periods that marked the onset of dangerous cooling that like the maunder minimum caused widespread famine and consequently disease.  If this declining magnetism/spotlessness continues it will follow the sun’s  previous 3 1/2 years of an almost spotless reign and potentially a very weak solar cycle 24 then if you believe (like me) in the sun/earth/climate connection then we are in for some very cold times ahead, and the current decade long cooling will only deepen significantly. The recent record snow falls and cold across the northern hemisphere fit quite comfortably within this emerging pattern.

Some alternate theories on the sun/earth/climate connection;

Theodore Landscheidt, Rhodes Fairbridge, Robert Felix, Mitch Battros, John Daly

Enso forecasts based on a solar model

Ken ring – predicting the weather by the moon

If we refuse to fail we refuse to learn!

ABC fails to learn

Cherry picking the warm thermometers, more here and here

Mid latitude storms and AGW do not mix

Friends of science website, International climate science coalition,

Emission policy struggles – now add Japan to the list!

Science, propaganda and politics

Trees will not become unstoppable killing machines

The Al Gore Collapse

Filed under: Uncategorized

4 Responses

  1. Feet2theFire says:

    Andreas –

    Slightly OT, but oscillations in the Sun – particularly sunspots – have always made me think of the Sun as a variable star. Most variable stars have very short oscillations and apparently larger amplitudes. But who is to say that all stars don’t oscillate to some degree?

    I’ve always intuited that more sunspots comes from “boiling over,” from the contraction/heating stage of oscillation, whereas relative lack of them comes from the expansion of the Sun in the other phase of oscillation. That the mean still has sunspots means not that this supposition is wrong, but that the “normal” temperature condition of the Sun is in a range where sunspots are present, but at a moderately low level.

    I am not an astronomer, though it is one career I considered. I do not have much capacity to study this speculation, but I thought you might find it interesting.

    As is obvious from sunspot history, all oscillations are clearly not equal. If the Sun itself was the only factor – itself a stand-alone causative agent – one would expect its oscillations to be very uniform: It warms up and expands to a certain point, then gravity wins out as the energy density is not enough to maintain the expansion, so it begins to collapse, but only does so to a specific point, when the energy density is so high it generates expansion again. But one would expect (in a 1-element system) that those two max/mins would be quite constant for a star on a millennial scale or less.

    But maybe the Sun is not quite in a 1-element system. Plausibly, the planets – the only other known bodies close enough to create any variability – may have some influence, as others have speculated in other ways. It seems there is just about a 1,000 year (some say more or less) larger cycle in which the sunspots (and, I presume, the Sun’s temperature) peak once and drop once. But the minimum may sometimes be quite a bit below the “boiling over” temperature. [Yes, I know, the Sun’s temp is different, depending on where one is measuring it. But perhaps it is just one of these measuring points that is the threshold for sunspot creation. All speculation, I know…] If that minimum (in the expansion phase) is far enough below the “boiling over” temperature, then it seems it would take a while to come back up to the critical temperature. (And perhaps the temperature is not the exact thing causing it all, but it seems plausible…)

    All this may be far too simplistic, but in over 40 years of fairly consistent observing, it seems to make some sense. I just connected sunspots in my head with variability in stars long ago, and I haven’t seen any reason to think otherwise – not yet, anyway.

    • twawki says:

      Agreed, and there are cycles of various magnitudes and everything is inter-related. The sun may have the greatest mass in our solar system but the variable placement of the planets affect the angular momentum etc.

  2. Feet2theFire says:

    I followed your link to Landscheidt, and found this:

    “In addition it also became obvious that Angular Momentum (AM) was responsible for the strength of the solar cycle, the AM curve very closely matches the sunspot curve which now allows us easily to predict modulation strength for the next 200 years and more. The AM graphs serve as a marker and AM is not a driver in itself, the background forces are gravity, rotation and velocity. There is one fact that cannot be argued against, the position of the planets as just described radically changes the path of the Sun around the Solar System Barycenter (SSB), this also coincides with all solar slowdowns. Only this planetary position can cause this radical path change.”

    I would not agree entirely with the three factors as being the only ones. Temperature itself is part of the driving mechanism. One could argue that it is an effect, not a cause, but so is velocity and so is rotation. But with the huge EM fields, how can they not be included, too?

    All magnets moving relative to one another induce currents in each other. The Sun must be affected by the gas giants every bit as much as by gravity, which is so tremendously less than the EM force. Landscheidt’s/Carl Smith’s premise of the gas giants having some influence has to include the combined EM of their relative positions. Gravity alone makes no sense whatsoever: What difference does it make whether the gravity is in this direction or that? The combined gravity, of the 3 in opposition to Saturn? Why Saturn as the opposer? Why not Jupiter (the biggest and closest)? Why not Uranus or Neptune? Do their particular EM fields make the difference? How would their gravitational fields IN JUST THIS PATTERN AND ONLY THIS PATTERN be able to cause this? Additive pull? Why not when all are in conjunction? Why the opposition as part of the equation?

    With the obvious EM evidence in sunspots – the loops and such – how can any theory not ask what part EM plays?

    But temperature must also be a part of the system, at least as an expanding force in maintaining the Solar diameter. And Solar diameter has to do with angular momentum. Does angular momentum get converted from angular – kinetic – energy into heat? Into EM fields? Into current? Does an expanded Sun, with its necessarily (as I see it) slower rotation, generate less of a dynamo?

    I love asking questions, but I will be damned if I have any answers…lol

    • twawki says:

      I think questioning is the basis of science regardless of qualifications. And yes like the climate system there are so many forcings we still do not completely understand the mechanisms.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in. Thomas Paine

Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. RONALD REAGAN,
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. Adlai E. Stevenson Jr
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other. Carl Schurz
The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one’s own person is its ultimate reward. Patricia Sampson
Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. Thomas Macaulay
The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free. Henry David Thoreau
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. George Washington

%d bloggers like this: