Jump to content
shuggee

Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

Recommended Posts

Is it time to start thinking that any link between low sun spot numbers and colder winters in Europe was either a coincidence or has been eradicated by climate change? I think if next winter is mild my mind will be made up 😞 I know this winter is far from over but I would have at least hoped to have seen some snow by now. On the plus side we've had a fair few frosts. Just sick of all this rain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 days blank,  274 for 2019, 77%

Solar flux 70

Thermosphere: 3.32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drgl said:

Is it time to start thinking that any link between low sun spot numbers and colder winters in Europe was either a coincidence or has been eradicated by climate change? I think if next winter is mild my mind will be made up 😞 I know this winter is far from over but I would have at least hoped to have seen some snow by now. On the plus side we've had a fair few frosts. Just sick of all this rain...

More to it than just the solar activity itself. I’ve read that some of the biggest volcanic eruptions happened during the maunder and Dalton minimums, that would’ve suppressed temperatures no doubt, and there does seem to be a positive correlation with higher volcanic activity and low solar activity. Not sure how the dynamics with it all work. But the evidence is there. 

Febraury 2009 was the first taste of the series of cold winters during the last minimum, So we have time yet! 

Edited by East_England_Stormchaser91

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 days blank, 275 for 2019, 77%

Solar flux 70

Thermosphere: 3.32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOLSTICE LIGHTS OVER THE ISLAND OF POLAR BEARS: Earth is exiting a stream of solar wind that sparked bright auroras around the Arctic Circle on Dec. 18th and 19th. One of the best places to be during the display was the Island of Polar Bears:

svalbard_strip Solstic lights over the island of the  Polar Bears.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest NOAA update on cycle 25:

WWW.ARRL.ORG

The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the national association for amateur radio, connecting hams around the U.S. with news...

 

25 will be similar in intensity to cycle 24. They are predicting this solar minimum will be in April 2020 so that is one to watch out for. If minimum happens after that then maybe cycle 25 could be weaker than 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, East_England_Stormchaser91 said:

 

Febraury 2009 was the first taste of the series of cold winters during the last minimum, So we have time yet! 

No, December 2008 and January 2009 were cold months with wintry weather. February started with an easterly but then turned very mild and stayed like that till the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, drgl said:

Is it time to start thinking that any link between low sun spot numbers and colder winters in Europe was either a coincidence or has been eradicated by climate change? I think if next winter is mild my mind will be made up 😞 I know this winter is far from over but I would have at least hoped to have seen some snow by now. On the plus side we've had a fair few frosts. Just sick of all this rain...

I pointed out in a post a week or so back that during the last really deep solar minimum before the 2007-09 one, which was 1911-14, none of the winters in that period were memorable. The first severe winter of the 20th century actually occurred close to a solar maximum which was 1916-17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the sun enters its minimum phase of cycle, minimal sunspots occur and in turn does not produce many G,M or X flares. The sun is in its resting phase during minimum, its magnetic field weakens and thus allows cosmic radiation to flow into our earths atmosphere. Cosmic radiation aka cosmic rays attack our earth in large quantities and thus nucleation of atmospheric particles happens which create more clouds producing a tremendous amounts of rain. In colder climates this precipitation can fall as snow and we have witnessed copious amounts of snow in certain regions already ie: Iceland, Siberia, Montana etc:  In warmer climates this phenomena brings dangerous floods. When the sun is in its minimum phase, another phenomena happens, the jet stream which flows from west to east around our globe becomes meriodinial, in other words, instead of it flowing from west to east flatly, it flows in vertical wavy motion, this can bring extreme weather differences, from heat to bitter cold, from flooding rains to severe blizzards. Phenomena number 3: Cosmic rays penetrate our earth and this can ignite silica rich magma underneath volcano ducts, this in turn causes volcanoes to erupt and usually as history has proven some of these volcanoes have exceeded levels of VEI5 and 6. Volcanic ash and sulfur dioxide reaching an height of 32,500 ft will have an effect on the local climate where the volcano erupts, 70,000-120,000ft eruption will cool the globe for at least 2 to 3 years think mount Tambora in 1816 which lead to a year without a summer. Luckily we have not experienced a VEI 6 level eruption in this solar minimum or the cycle 23, but i am holding my breath because its only a matter of time before it does happen especially with our earths magnetic field depleted by over 20% since 1900. So two phenomenon that are directly attributed to solar minimum, 1: increase of cloud cover, 2: large volcanic eruptions creating particulates in our stratosphere thus blocking out sunlight. As Weather History explained above solar minimum is not conducive to colder winters which is paradoxical, but the factors that i have explained above are responsible for global cooling. Many winters in our past that have been cold were actually going through solar maximum. Europe has been remarkarkbly mild the past 30 years, will a VEI6 eruption change that, time will tell. Are we suffering from lag effect from warming from the 90s and 2000s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, General Cluster said:

And I'm the reincarnation of The Archduke Franz Ferdinand!:yahoo:

Just realised that you're the artist formerly known as!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 days blank,  276 for 2019, 78%

Solar flux 71

Thermosphere: 3.35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Minus 10 said:

When the sun enters its minimum phase of cycle, minimal sunspots occur and in turn does not produce many G,M or X flares. The sun is in its resting phase during minimum, its magnetic field weakens and thus allows cosmic radiation to flow into our earths atmosphere. Cosmic radiation aka cosmic rays attack our earth in large quantities and thus nucleation of atmospheric particles happens which create more clouds producing a tremendous amounts of rain. In colder climates this precipitation can fall as snow and we have witnessed copious amounts of snow in certain regions already ie: Iceland, Siberia, Montana etc:  In warmer climates this phenomena brings dangerous floods. When the sun is in its minimum phase, another phenomena happens, the jet stream which flows from west to east around our globe becomes meriodinial, in other words, instead of it flowing from west to east flatly, it flows in vertical wavy motion, this can bring extreme weather differences, from heat to bitter cold, from flooding rains to severe blizzards. Phenomena number 3: Cosmic rays penetrate our earth and this can ignite silica rich magma underneath volcano ducts, this in turn causes volcanoes to erupt and usually as history has proven some of these volcanoes have exceeded levels of VEI5 and 6. Volcanic ash and sulfur dioxide reaching an height of 32,500 ft will have an effect on the local climate where the volcano erupts, 70,000-120,000ft eruption will cool the globe for at least 2 to 3 years think mount Tambora in 1816 which lead to a year without a summer. Luckily we have not experienced a VEI 6 level eruption in this solar minimum or the cycle 23, but i am holding my breath because its only a matter of time before it does happen especially with our earths magnetic field depleted by over 20% since 1900. So two phenomenon that are directly attributed to solar minimum, 1: increase of cloud cover, 2: large volcanic eruptions creating particulates in our stratosphere thus blocking out sunlight. As Weather History explained above solar minimum is not conducive to colder winters which is paradoxical, but the factors that i have explained above are responsible for global cooling. Many winters in our past that have been cold were actually going through solar maximum. Europe has been remarkarkbly mild the past 30 years, will a VEI6 eruption change that, time will tell. Are we suffering from lag effect from warming from the 90s and 2000s?

Not one bit of this is proven. Its all theory so it needs to not be written with such certainty. I'm not saying it might not be true but it's theory and that's it 

Edited by inghams85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, inghams85 said:

Not one bit of this is proven. Its all theory so it needs to not be written with such certainty. I'm not saying it might not be true but it's theory and that's it 

Well, you cannot 'ignite' magma -- that's for certain! Magma, like lava, is molten rock; it's not 'on-fire', in any chemical sense... it's just very hot.🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, General Cluster said:

Well, you cannot 'ignite' magma -- that's for certain! Magma, like lava, is molten rock; it's not 'on-fire', in any chemical sense... it's just very hot.🤔

As a scientist myself I cannot allow posts like what was writ to be left unchallenged as it simply wasn't true was it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, inghams85 said:

Not one bit of this is proven. Its all theory so it needs to not be written with such certainty. I'm not saying it might not be true but it's theory and that's it 

So no one is allowed to postulate a theory anymore. If it wasn't written with a believe in mind in wouldn't be written at all. The theory of agitating magma during solar minimum due to the weak magnetic field protection of the sun is not new and the word ignite can mean excite /cause greater chemical reaction etc etc.

Edited by jonboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jonboy said:

So no one is allowed to postulate a theory anymore. If it wasn't written with a believe in mind in wouldn't be written at all. The theory of agitating magma during solar minimum due to the weak magnetic field protection of the sun is not new and the word ignite can mean excite /cause greater chemical reaction etc etc.

I don't think postulating a theory is an issue. The problem is that Minus 10 described them in a "matter of fact" kind of way. The reality is that the links between cosmic rays and weather and volcanoes are all just ideas or hypothesis at this point, with scant evidence to support them. They are not even close to the level of scientific theory. It doesn't make sense to describe them with certainty.
There are so many things governing cloud cover that we have evidence for, while there are also many ideas on why there is a weak association between solar activity and volcanoes. So saying that cosmic rays are "directly attributed" to them is hugely inaccurate and misleading.

Edited by BornFromTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

I don't think postulating a theory is an issue. The problem is that Minus 10 described them in a "matter of fact" kind of way. The reality is that the links between cosmic rays and weather and volcanoes are all just ideas or hypothesis at this point, with scant evidence to support them. They are not even close to the level of scientific theory. It doesn't make sense to describe them with certainty.
There are so many things governing cloud cover that we have evidence for, while there are also many ideas on why there is a weak association between solar activity and volcanoes. So saying that cosmic rays are "directly attributed" to them is hugely inaccurate and misleading.

Svensmark and others like Hamish Gordon and the work at CERN all go a long way down the path of 'directly attributing levels of cosmic rays to levels of cloud cover. In regard to volcanic activity and solar minimum but especially low or very low solar minimum there has been shown a direct link between the two. Yes the exact science may not be known but the link is there. So what 'kind of way' would you like it expressed in. No doubt your way or no way!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stand in for steve b this morning:

spotless days 40/78% 277 this year

radio sun 71sfu

thermosphere 34.0 billion watts

kp index 2

neutron count 9.2% high

Edited by Minus 10
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Svensmark and others like Hamish Gordon and the work at CERN all go a long way down the path of 'directly attributing levels of cosmic rays to levels of cloud cover. In regard to volcanic activity and solar minimum but especially low or very low solar minimum there has been shown a direct link between the two. Yes the exact science may not be known but the link is there. So what 'kind of way' would you like it expressed in. No doubt your way or no way!!

Svensmarks ideas about cosmic rays and the climate required numerous other pieces of evidence in order to work, as he had no observational evidence himself. Turns out the other aspects required for his idea (such as long term trends in solar magnetic field, long term trends in low level cloud cover, etc.) proved him wrong in the end.
With Gordon and CERN, they have shown that cosmic rays can have an influence at the initial phase required to produce aerosols, but there are several other steps required for even the lab experiments show an influence on cloud formations. The CERN website itself has this to say:
"Direct effects of cosmic-ray ionisation on the formation of fair-weather clouds are highly speculative and almost completely unexplored experimentally,"

file?size=large
HOME.CERN

CERN’s colossal complex of accelerators is in the midst of a two-year shutdown for upgrade work. But that doesn’t mean all experiments at the Laboratory have...

So it may be shown that cosmic rays have an influence on cloud cover. Then it has to be shown that it's significant in the real world. Then that it's detectable. It might all happen, but for now, as the experts say, it's highly speculative.

With volcanic activity, I mentioned that there is a link with solar activity and volcanoes. But there are several competing ideas regarding that link, non of which have been proven. An example is that a large frequency of solar flares during the maximum causes vibrations that reduce the stress in magma chamber. During the minimum, with less stress relieving flares, the pressure builds up and produces eruptions. As I said, not proven one way or another yet.

When things aren't certain, don't describe them with certainty. Like not saying "directly attributed" when the actual experts say the opposite. It's completely possible to describe potential links without stating them in terms of absolute certainty. It shouldn't be a complex or divisive issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me Void, Id prefer if you chose not to dictate to me what i cant or can write, im not offending anyone with slander or abusive words. I merely write what I believe regarding my studies and research.  I for one know that nothing in this universe is  certain, im a student in various subjects regarding these matters. I dont believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth in this universe. Experts have predicted many things with certainty and got it wrong. Al Gore comes to mind... Am i a human being? possiibly, most likely, maybe, probably, lol. The universe and our climate are complex yes? Im certainly not a divisive  person, quite the opposite actually, I believe in unity, united we stand, divided we fall. In a world of duality will we achieve unity, i doubt it unless its under a tyrannical order or everyone becomes enlightened. And in a world of duality there will always be an argument and counter-argument. The goal is to debate and reason without attack and censor of ones beliefs, is that happening....no, quite the contrary.

Perhaps you could do well in fulfilling your role as a moderator and not dictating what wordage I use in my studies, unless its aggressive, abusive, or of a sniping nature.

And I would also like to pay my respects to David Bellamy and his family, a true scientist. RIP

Regards

Edited by Minus 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Minus 10 said:

Excuse me Void, Id prefer if you chose not to dictate to me what i cant or can write, im not offending anyone with slander or abusive words. I merely write what I believe regarding my studies and research.  I for one know that nothing in this universe is  certain, im a student in various subjects regarding these matters. I dont believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth in this universe. Experts have predicted many things with certainty and got it wrong. Al Gore comes to mind... Am i a human being? possiibly, most likely, maybe, probably, lol. The universe and our climate are complex yes? Im certainly not a divisive  person, quite the opposite actually, I believe in unity, united we stand, divided we fall. In a world of duality will we achieve unity, i doubt it unless its under a tyrannical order or everyone becomes enlightened. And in a world of duality there will always be and argument and counter-argument. The goal is to debate and reason without attack and censor of ones beliefs, is that happening....no, quite the contrary.

Perhaps you could do well in fulfilling your role as a moderator and not dictating what wordage I use in my studies, unless its aggressive, abusive, or of a sniping nature.

Regards

Al Gore ain't an expert and nobody has accused you of slander in any way. Nor has anyone been censored or attacked. I haven't even dictated what words you use. I'm not engaging here as a moderator, just another user.

As someone who's open to studying and who realises there are few things certain in the universe, why speak of speculative ideas in certain terms?  It's not a fault to express doubt in an idea where doubt exists.
To have a vague theory pointed out as being unproven shouldn't be viewed as an attack or censorship. Nor should providing an explanation and evidence to support the fact that the idea presented is unproven. This can be argument and counter-argument scenario, promoting discussion and exchange of ideas and evidence. 

To exclaim "attack" or "censorship" every time an unproven idea is not accepted as gospel is hardly a positive approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Minus 10 said:

Excuse me Void, Id prefer if you chose not to dictate to me what i cant or can write, im not offending anyone with slander or abusive words. I merely write what I believe regarding my studies and research.  I for one know that nothing in this universe is  certain, im a student in various subjects regarding these matters. I dont believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth in this universe. Experts have predicted many things with certainty and got it wrong. Al Gore comes to mind... Am i a human being? possiibly, most likely, maybe, probably, lol. The universe and our climate are complex yes? Im certainly not a divisive  person, quite the opposite actually, I believe in unity, united we stand, divided we fall. In a world of duality will we achieve unity, i doubt it unless its under a tyrannical order or everyone becomes enlightened. And in a world of duality there will always be an argument and counter-argument. The goal is to debate and reason without attack and censor of ones beliefs, is that happening....no, quite the contrary.

Perhaps you could do well in fulfilling your role as a moderator and not dictating what wordage I use in my studies, unless its aggressive, abusive, or of a sniping nature.

And I would also like to pay my respects to David Bellamy and his family, a true scientist. RIP

Regards

I suggest before you post you first put "there is a theory that.... And so son. To write with certainty is misleading and extremely wrong for people who don't understand the topic. It's verging on unacceptable in my eyes as a scientist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...