Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Solar and Aurora Activity Chat


shuggee

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

There's usually a period when spots from both cycles can occur.

Indeed but no upward movement until cycle 24 sunspots supercede cycle 23.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Actually, both show/showed (one has faded already) SC24 polarity.

Sunspot number count was given as 3 by STAR, but this is not an official reading..anyway, another couple of signs SC24 could be emerging now. One spot last week, two this week..whoopee! http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.
  • Location: Lower Brynamman, nr Ammanford, 160-170m a.s.l.

Actually, both show/showed (one has faded already) SC24 polarity.

Sunspot number count was given as 3 by STAR, but this is not an official reading..anyway, another couple of signs SC24 could be emerging now. One spot last week, two this week..whoopee! http://nwstatic.co.uk/forum/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

Ooh, where do you get your info from? The sites I look at are saying that which cycle the one south of the equator belongs to has not yet been identified, although the one at higher latitude in the northern hemisphere is definitely cycle 24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: ilminster Somerset
  • Location: ilminster Somerset
interesting link there delta,at last they are beginning to admit there is something extraordinary happening!

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

Edited by blackdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

Oh, you beat me to it! :doh:

If we are at this point with 3 months of the year left, how might it be come the end of December, I wonder?

PS I've just re-read the article and can answer my own question!!! Lowest in 100 years.....now that's going some!

Edited by noggin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire

I think Mr Hathaway is being a little disingenuous in saying that it is "still unremarkable compared to the long and deep solar minima of the late 19th and early 20th centuries". Why won't he say that it is remarkable for the period of (supposed) AGW that we are (supposedly) in?

Mealy-mouthed as well as disingenuous, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

I think Mr Hathaway is being a little disingenuous in saying that it is "still unremarkable compared to the long and deep solar minima of the late 19th and early 20th centuries". Why won't he say that it is remarkable for the period of (supposed) AGW that we are (supposedly) in?

Mealy-mouthed as well as disingenuous, IMHO.

He is probably very disappointed that he got it wrong. However, in a way he is not too incorrect but he is failing to expand. It is what this may be leading to is what will make it remarkable. This has ALL the hallmarks of an entry into a Dalton Minima which is being touted as 'bottoming' in cycle 25. So we are in a very notable stage but not remarkable.............yet!

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Yorkshire
  • Location: South Yorkshire

Well,here's the bit of that item which stands out to me.

"There is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell. "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim."

The frustration at being forced to admit the sun's influence,and the now increasing transparency of the CO2 fraud is palpable. Could the same small,fraction of a percent,but significant change during the 'global warming' (which notably occured in two strong solar cycles) years have had an 'influence' too? Sigh,etc... Current cooling will cease(or not) when the sun decides,never mind what hordes of drip-fed scientists say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Bethnal Green
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and Cold
  • Location: Bethnal Green

I believe there was a year in the 19th century that had 365 spotless days. So I think unless we can beat that then Hathaway will continue to consider this minimum to be not unusual and unremarkable. :doh:

Edited by fozi999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL

The comments in this thread are quite simply, bizzare. I don't think there's a climate scientist on the planet that does not agree that the sun has the BIGGEST influence on weather on our planet. The % changes in strength, the number of sunspots etc., ALL add up to changes in the weather, temperature etc. That is scientific fact - and there are graphs out there that show the relationships and correlations extremely well.

The argument I think many are trying to grapple with is as to whether the recent unpredented warming, compared to the last 2000 years is now over-riding the affects of the sun's influence thanks to human activity on the planet. And since the same graphs that correlate in the past between sun strength, sunspots, sloar radiation etc. now show that the decrease in activity ought to have meant (as it has in the past) that the planet should be cooling - the warming of the last 50-80 years seems to be over-riding this signal. So I'd argue that the recent inactivity of the sun - which is not mirrored in mercury reading reductions on the planet - is actually very stark evidence that there is a new greater influence at play. Hmmm..., what can that be?! :doh:

Even leading sceptics agree with the above these days - the argument is now about the degree to which human activity is influencing the weather and global temps, and the future. There is no argument against warming actually happening. Mercury thermometers and satellite records can not lie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Norton, Stockton-on-Tees
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold in winter, warm and sunny in summer
  • Location: Norton, Stockton-on-Tees

According to spaceweather.com the 2 sunspots that appeared yesterday have now gone leaving the sun blank again.

I wonder then whether yesterday counts as another blank day (because the sunspot number was never more than 0) or if it counts as having sunspots despite the fact they were classed as 'proto-sunspots'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts
  • Location: St. Albans, Herts

The argument I think many are trying to grapple with is as to whether the recent unpredented warming, compared to the last 2000 years is now over-riding the affects of the sun's influence thanks to human activity on the planet. And since the same graphs that correlate in the past between sun strength, sunspots, sloar radiation etc. now show that the decrease in activity ought to have meant (as it has in the past) that the planet should be cooling - the warming of the last 50-80 years seems to be over-riding this signal. So I'd argue that the recent inactivity of the sun - which is not mirrored in mercury reading reductions on the planet - is actually very stark evidence that there is a new greater influence at play. Hmmm..., what can that be?! :doh:

Hurrah for Shuggee! At last, some sense! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shetland Coastie

And since the same graphs that correlate in the past between sun strength, sunspots, sloar radiation etc. now show that the decrease in activity ought to have meant (as it has in the past) that the planet should be cooling - the warming of the last 50-80 years seems to be over-riding this signal. So I'd argue that the recent inactivity of the sun - which is not mirrored in mercury reading reductions on the planet - is actually very stark evidence that there is a new greater influence at play. Hmmm..., what can that be?! :D

Ovet the last 100 years global temps have risen by some 0.7C. They have fallen by that amount over the last 18 months. In what way does that not represent a cooling??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL

Sorry SC this is a thread about solar activity - not yet another thread for a dozen or so people to hijack and go on and on about their denial theories about global warming. My post was in that context - please stick to that topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: ilminster Somerset
  • Location: ilminster Somerset

back on track last months sunspot totals from SIDC

:Issued: 2008 Oct 01 0858 UTC

:Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/ri

#--------------------------------------------------------------------#

# MONTHLY REPORT ON THE INTERNATIONAL SUNSPOT NUMBER #

# from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium) #

#--------------------------------------------------------------------#

Provisional International monthly mean Sunspot Number for

September 2008 : 1.1 (one point one)

Maximum : 9 on 23 // Minimum : 0 on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30

Provisional daily International Sunspot Numbers for September 2008 :

1.. 0 6.. 0 11.. 7 16.. 0 21.. 0 26.. 0

2.. 0 7.. 0 12.. 0 17.. 0 22.. 8 27.. 0

3.. 0 8.. 0 13.. 0 18.. 0 23.. 9 28.. 0

4.. 0 9.. 0 14.. 0 19.. 0 24.. 0 29.. 8

5.. 0 10.. 0 15.. 0 20.. 0 25.. 0 30.. 0

67 cooperating stations on October 1, 08 UT

also a geoalert

:Issued: 2008 Oct 01 1248 UTC

:Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/xut

#--------------------------------------------------------------------#

# GEOALERT message from the SIDC (RWC-Belgium) #

#--------------------------------------------------------------------#

GEOALERT BRU275

UGEOA 30512 81001 1241/ 9930/

10012 21012 30012

99999

PLAIN

NOTE: the above forecasts are valid from 1230UT, 01 Oct 2008 until 03 Oct 2008

PREDICTIONS FOR 01 Oct 2008 10CM FLUX: 067 / AP: 012

PREDICTIONS FOR 02 Oct 2008 10CM FLUX: 067 / AP: 021

PREDICTIONS FOR 03 Oct 2008 10CM FLUX: 066 / AP: 010

COMMENT: Yesterday afternoon, the solar wind speed has increased from

350 km/s to 500 km/s triggering mild Kp=3 geomagnetic activity. We

expect that the core of the coronal influence is still to come with more

disturbed (Kp=4) geomagnetic activity tomorrow, Oct 2. Meanwhile no

solar flares are expected.

Edited by blackdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

Sorry SC this is a thread about solar activity - not yet another thread for a dozen or so people to hijack and go on and on about their denial theories about global warming. My post was in that context - please stick to that topic.

Shuggee you are in denial or you don't know the facts.

Cycle 18 began in February 1944 and ended in April 1954 lasting 10 years 2 months.

Cycle 19 began in April 1954 and ended October 1964 lasting 10 years 6 months

Cycle 21 started in June 1976 and lasted 10 years and 3 months.

Cycle 22 started in September 1986 and lasted 9 years and 8 months.

Now bearing in mind that solar cycles can last between 9 and 13 years but average 11 years. Generally the shorter the cycle the more active the sun and vice versa.

It isn't quite as straight forward as that but we have generally been in 50+ years of very high solar activity.

Hmmmmmm so the sun has been inactive last 50 years plus and is being overidden....the facts speak otherwise. Only cycle 20 was longer than 11 years and guess what....the cold 60s.

BFTP

Edited by BLAST FROM THE PAST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL

OK here are some facts in picture form for the deaf & hard of hearing:

Posted Image

Posted Image

As you can clearly see - the correlation is clearly now being skewed (as my original post explained) by something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

back on track last months sunspot totals from SIDC

Just a quick one, Blackdown

SIDC (in Belgium) waver differently from the actual NOAA sunspot count. Although their info is genuine, the sunspot count (from them) is not the real deal.

They may well be correct, but NOAA is the official number. If NOAA didn't number the recent small spot areas - I don't think they did - then it's still a zero :-(

OK here are some facts in picture form for the deaf & hard of hearing:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Shugs. you've either had too much of the local Buckfast ( ;-) ) or you haven't yet caught upto speed..!

Hate how this particular area of the forum has now descended into another slanging match...chuck that graph on the climate threads, Shuggee, and watch it be torn to shreds.

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL

Indeed Mondy - as I posted above this isn't the place and a lot of us don't have the time either!! :D

Now will somebody go up and rub a balloon or something against the sun and get Cycle 24 underway - I want to see the Aurora before I die!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: ilminster Somerset
  • Location: ilminster Somerset

(quote)Just a quick one, Blackdown

SIDC (in Belgium) waver differently from the actual NOAA sunspot count. Although their info is genuine, the sunspot count (from them) is not the real deal.

They may well be correct, but NOAA is the official number. If NOAA didn't number the recent small spot areas - I don't think they did - then it's still a zero :-(

indeed you are most likely right ,but as i understand it this is monthly provisional report and is adjusted in the future

to be quite honest i dont know how NOAA quantify it,but hey its still very low

i found this from SIDC an explanation on sunspot reporting it clarified things for me to some extent

http://sidc.oma.be/news/106/sunspotnumberclarified.pdf

Edited by blackdown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...