The Sun

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Do sunspots cause climate change?

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:48 pm

Global cooling predicted based on solar activity:

Cold Climate Era
Monday, May 10, 2010
11:30 AM
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.”

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Full .doc report:
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuil ... -22-08.doc
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Do sunspots cause climate change?

Unread postby scotts » Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:05 pm

Piers Corbyn also forecasts the same, though he says cooling until 2035, possibly longer. His forecasts are 85% accurate. He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles. Very EU like... :)

he has a ton of videos on youtube. His site is www.weatheraction.com


GaryN wrote:Global cooling predicted based on solar activity:

Cold Climate Era
Monday, May 10, 2010
11:30 AM
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), the leading independent research organization in the United States on the subject of the next climate change, issues today the following warning of imminent crop damage expected to produce food and ethanol shortages for the US and Canada:

Over the next 30 months, global temperatures are expected to make another dramatic drop even greater than that seen during the 2007-2008 period. As the Earth’s current El Nino dissipates, the planet will return to the long term temperature decline brought on by the Sun’s historic reduction in output, the on-going “solar hibernation.”

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Full .doc report:
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuil ... -22-08.doc
scotts
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Do sunspots cause climate change?

Unread postby paulvsheridan » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:20 am



This Steve Connor is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the established charlatans and assorted fundraisers, not the least of which is my special long-time "buddy" Crutzen:

"...analysis of the flaws is accepted by most scientists familiar with the research, including Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer."

It is therefore no surprise that Connor would shuffle his way to a mindless store-bought Crutzen quote. See one of my many relevant blurbs on the Rowland/Molina/Crutzen ozone farce:

http://links.veronicachapman.com/Sherid ... t-1993.pdf (can you say "Bronfman"?)

Note that Conner MUST massage the Crutzen quote with the [sunspot] insertion:

" 'There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and its quite irritating," Professor Crutzen said.' "

It is clear that even the charlatan Crutzen cannot bring himself to the Connor level of misrepresentation...but I am utterly confident the former will not demand a correction. Afterall, there's big money at stake, sorta like those DuPont/ICI freon patent expirations of 1994/1995. Nothing has changed for Crutzen.

This is a classic case of media/psuedoscience diversion; in this case, where the SPECIFIC issue of the "argument" is NOT sunspots but cosmic radiation attenuation or lack thereof. Their use of the sunspot "argument" is no more credible than ANY strawman polemic...indeed, it is implicitly adolescent, purposedly designed/deployed for consumption by those who are known-to-be the most vulnerable (average taxpayers/citizens). Doubt this? Take a look at Connor's definition of cosmic rays:

" *Cosmic rays

Stellar explosions in deep space give off cosmic radiation that continually bombards Earth. The energy, however, is very weak (equivalent to starlight). Some scientists believe that cosmic rays may influence cloud formation by aerosol "seeding".
"


In other words, the sum-total of Connor's erudition on the SPECIFIC issue is the equivalent of, 'Cosmic rays = cosmic radiation.'

If I had handled-in that tautalogical goo to my 10th grade science teacher, I would have deservedly received a grade of "F." But this guy claims to be their 'Science Editor' (!?). The AGWA are truly pathetic.
User avatar
paulvsheridan
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Do sunspots cause climate change?

Unread postby sucahyo » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:43 am

Piers Corbyn thought on weather:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No27.pdf

• The CO2 driver theory of climate change fails
– REFUTED by Observations and Physics
• Solar Activity Rules – See Web movie
– from Coronal Holes & Solar flares to extreme weather events
• Proven success of Solar Weather Technique
– Brit+Ire - Scandinavia - Europe – USA – World - -- - FORECASTS FORECASTS FORECASTS FORECASTS for YOU


The theory of ‘Global warming’ holds that Man’s CO2 causes Global Warming and this causes other Climate Change and extremes.

CO2 -> Global Warming -> Climate Change

We have heard a lot about weather extremes & ‘Climate Change’
Since 1998 CO2 has gone up but World Temperature have gone down. ALL subsequent years* have been colder than 1998 Or In terms of two year moving averages the peak was 2002/3



Solar Activity Rules!
For example April 29th Coronal Holes led to Increases in geomagnetic activity & jet stream shifts & predicted tornadoes, thunder & massive floods USA & Azerbaijan (details WeatherActionNewsNo19)

Movie of jet stream http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/nhemjetstream_model.html
- Archive jet stream – Animated Loop
– 2010 May 1st 0z - 4 days - 6 hr steps

SEE May 2nd / 3rd as Coronal Hole effects hit – major Jet over SE USA & mid East -extra JS thrashing about
/break-up. Polar core wind rotation changes direction May 3rd


1. ENJOY life! Enjoy the planet!
Don't feel guilty about ‘carbon footprints’. CO2 is the Gas Of Life (GOL)! More GOL increases the bounteousness of plant & animal life. GOL (CO2) IS NOT A POLLUTANT.
2. ACCEPT Man can’t change Climate!
The Problem is Climate Change POLICY. ‘Climate Science’ lacks integrity. Science is not driving policy. It’s the other way round! Prove and predict. Basic standards of science should be applied in Climate science.
3. PREPARE for the end of Carbon Games
Carbon Trading & all ‘Green’ games will end. Make new business models to BE AHEAD OF THE GAME. Be honest Green - Stop real pollution - Defend biodiversity - Go for cheap energy and Accountable Evidence-based science & policy.
4. USE Proven forecasts – Reduce losses!
Support a new World effort to predict & prepare for all natural disasters


Close correlation between Particles from the Sun* & Temperature**
{*C14 proxy from Cosmic Ray Flux which is reduced by Solar magnetic-particle activity. **O18 isotope is Climate proxy}

Increased solar (magnetic) activity excludes more cosmic rays (extra-solar high energy) from solar system and Earth. Cosmic rays convert N14 to C14 so C14 is a reverse proxy for solar activity.

∆C14 = – ∆ Solar activity => 11yr signal

Also note solar Cycle length = 1/ solar activity approx.

Geomagnetic activity = Solar activity <11yr> X Earth magnetic cross section (depends on slow changing Earth’s magnetic field) => 11yr signal

Temperature = Particle EFFECT = Geomag activity X magnetic linkage to lower atmosphere via poles etc <22yr> => 22yr signal

Solar magnetic cycle (22yr) smoothed temps and geomagnetic activity move together better than anything else.

Solar AND LUNAR Amplification Magnetic (SLAM) Process has predictive powers 12 months ahead

Lunar Modulation (18.6/9.3yr) X Magnetic Links(22yr) X Solar Activity (11yr) = World Temps
sucahyo
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Do sunspots cause climate change?

Unread postby Dotini » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:36 am

According to this source: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Cosmic rays have more to do with climate change than anything else.

Apropos of cosmic rays, here is something interesting: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early ... ce.1199172

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
Dotini
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:44 am
Location: Seattle

Re: The Sun Calls the Tune?

Unread postby nick c » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:32 pm

This thread is a merger of the following threads:

Solar Model

New highly detailed sun images

Why sun’s atmosphere is ‘so darned hot’

Total Eclipse of Sun

Otherworldly Solar Eclipse

The Sun Calls the Tune?
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Superstorm near-miss calculations

Unread postby kell1990 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:14 pm

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... uperstorm/

(Short story: comparable to the Carrington event; probabilities of occurence again: 12%. )


"July 23, 2014: If an asteroid big enough to knock modern civilization back to the 18th century appeared out of deep space and buzzed the Earth-Moon system, the near-miss would be instant worldwide headline news.

Two years ago, Earth experienced a close shave just as perilous, but most newspapers didn't mention it. The "impactor" was an extreme solar storm, the most powerful in as much as 150+ years.

"If it had hit, we would still be picking up the pieces," says Daniel Baker of the University of Colorado."

"Baker, along with colleagues from NASA and other universities, published a seminal study of the storm in the December 2013 issue of the journal Space Weather. Their paper, entitled "A major solar eruptive event in July 2012," describes how a powerful coronal mass ejection (CME) tore through Earth orbit on July 23, 2012. Fortunately Earth wasn't there. Instead, the storm cloud hit the STEREO-A spacecraft.

"I have come away from our recent studies more convinced than ever that Earth and its inhabitants were incredibly fortunate that the 2012 eruption happened when it did," says Baker. "If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire. "

Extreme solar storms pose a threat to all forms of high-technology. They begin with an explosion--a "solar flare"—in the magnetic canopy of a sunspot. X-rays and extreme UV radiation reach Earth at light speed, ionizing the upper layers of our atmosphere; side-effects of this "solar EMP" include radio blackouts and GPS navigation errors. Minutes to hours later, the energetic particles arrive. Moving only slightly slower than light itself, electrons and protons accelerated by the blast can electrify satellites and damage their electronics. Then come the CMEs, billion-ton clouds of magnetized plasma that take a day or more to cross the Sun-Earth divide. Analysts believe that a direct hit by an extreme CME such as the one that missed Earth in July 2012 could cause widespread power blackouts, disabling everything that plugs into a wall socket. Most people wouldn't even be able to flush their toilet because urban water supplies largely rely on electric pumps.

"Before July 2012, when researchers talked about extreme solar storms their touchstone was the iconic Carrington Event of Sept. 1859, named after English astronomer Richard Carrington who actually saw the instigating flare with his own eyes. In the days that followed his observation, a series of powerful CMEs hit Earth head-on with a potency not felt before or since. Intense geomagnetic storms ignited Northern Lights as far south as Cuba and caused global telegraph lines to spark, setting fire to some telegraph offices and thus disabling the 'Victorian Internet."

A similar storm today could have a catastrophic effect. According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, the total economic impact could exceed $2 trillion or 20 times greater than the costs of a Hurricane Katrina. Multi-ton transformers damaged by such a storm might take years to repair.

"In my view the July 2012 storm was in all respects at least as strong as the 1859 Carrington event," says Baker. "The only difference is, it missed."

In February 2014, physicist Pete Riley of Predictive Science Inc. published a paper in Space Weather entitled "On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events." In it, he analyzed records of solar storms going back 50+ years. By extrapolating the frequency of ordinary storms to the extreme, he calculated the odds that a Carrington-class storm would hit Earth in the next ten years.

The answer: 12%.

"Initially, I was quite surprised that the odds were so high, but the statistics appear to be correct," says Riley. "It is a sobering figure."

In his study, Riley looked carefully at a parameter called Dst, short for "disturbance – storm time." This is a number calculated from magnetometer readings around the equator. Essentially, it measures how hard Earth's magnetic field shakes when a CME hits. The more negative Dst becomes, the worse the storm. Ordinary geomagnetic storms, which produce Northern Lights around the Arctic Circle, but otherwise do no harm, register Dst=-50 nT (nanoTesla). The worst geomagnetic storm of the Space Age, which knocked out power across Quebec in March 1989, registered Dst=-600 nT. Modern estimates of Dst for the Carrington Event itself range from -800 nT to a staggering -1750 nT.

In their Dec. 2013 paper, Baker et al. estimated Dst for the July 2012 storm. "If that CME had hit Earth, the resulting geomagnetic storm would have registered a Dst of -1200, comparable to the Carrington Event and twice as bad as the March 1989 Quebec blackout."

The reason researchers know so much about the July 2012 storm is because, out of all the spacecraft in the solar system it could have hit, it did hit a solar observatory. STEREO-A is almost ideally equipped to measure the parameters of such an event.

"The rich data set obtained by STEREO far exceeded the relatively meagre observations that Carrington was able to make in the 19th century," notes Riley. "Thanks to STEREO-A we know a lot of about the magnetic structure of the CME, the kind of shock waves and energetic particles it produced, and perhaps most importantly of all, the number of CMEs that preceded it."

It turns out that the active region responsible for producing the July 2012 storm didn't launch just one CME into space, but many. Some of those CMEs "plowed the road" for the superstorm.

A paperin the March 2014 edition of Nature Communications by UC Berkeley space physicist Janet G. Luhmann and former postdoc Ying D. Liu describes the process: The July 23rd CME was actually two CMEs separated by only 10 to 15 minutes. This double-CME traveled through a region of space that had been cleared out by yet another CME four days earlier. As a result, the storm clouds were not decelerated as much as usual by their transit through the interplanetary medium.

"It's likely that the Carrington event was also associated with multiple eruptions, and this may turn out to be a key requirement for extreme events," notes Riley. "In fact, it seems that extreme events may require an ideal combination of a number of key features to produce the 'perfect solar storm.'"

"Pre-conditioning by multiple CMEs appears to be very important," agrees Baker.

A common question about this event is, how did the STEREO-A probe survive? After all, Carrington-class storms are supposed to be mortally dangerous to spacecraft and satellites. Yet STEREO-A not only rode out the storm, but also continued taking high-quality data throughout.

"Spacecraft such as the STEREO twins and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (a joint ESA/NASA mission) were designed to operate in the environment outside the Earth's magnetosphere, and that includes even quite intense, CME-related shocks," says Joe Gurman, the STEREO project scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "To my knowledge, nothing serious happened to the spacecraft."

The story might have been different, he says, if STEREO-A were orbiting Earth instead of traveling through interplanetary space.

"Inside Earth's magnetosphere, strong electric currents can be generated by a CME strike," he explains. "Out in interplanetary space, however, the ambient magnetic field is much weaker and so those dangerous currents are missing." In short, STEREO-A was in a good place to ride out the storm.

"Without the kind of coverage afforded by the STEREO mission, we as a society might have been blissfully ignorant of this remarkable solar storm," notes Baker. "How many others of this scale have just happened to miss Earth and our space detection systems? This is a pressing question that needs answers."

If Riley's work holds true, there is a 12% chance we will learn a lot more about extreme solar storms in the next 10 years—when one actually strikes Earth.

Says Baker, "we need to be prepared."



Credits:
Author: Dr. Tony Phillips | Production editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA
kell1990
Guest
 

Re: Superstorm near-miss calculations

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 10, 2014 9:48 pm

Indeed, this is the best reason for pushing advances in solar science.

What the article didn't mention is that a lot of the damage from a Carrington event could be prevented by taking down the electrical grid during the storm. The intensity of induced currents in wires is a function of the length of the wires. So if you shut down the generators, and open all of the switches, the effective length of the wires is much shorter, meaning less damage.

But there are a couple of problems with downing the power grid, world-wide.

First, it would be very costly. So nobody is going to order the shutdown unless they're absolutely sure of the effects of the storm. But with the sloppy, ad hoc, non-physical solar physics that we have now, nobody is sure of anything until after it has happened.

Second, we need lead time to do something like that. By the time the satellites first measure the intensity of the particles hitting them, it's only a matter of minutes before the Earth gets hit. That isn't very much time. It would be a lot better to have at least a couple of hours notice. For example, facilities (such as hospitals) that have emergency generators might decide to test their equipment, so that if something doesn't work, it can be fixed. But to get that kind of lead time, we'd need to be able to predict the intensity of the particle storm just on the basis of the observations of the event on the surface of the Sun, long before we get measures of the intensity of the particle stream. And to do that, we would need a physical model of the Sun, not just after-the-fact MHD rationalizations.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Superstorm near-miss calculations

Unread postby dahlenaz » Fri Aug 15, 2014 5:47 pm

If i recall correctly,, the telegraph wires were solid conductors..
The transmission wires of today are twisted so are they not less
suceptable to induction? Where as, solid conductors are used in
transformers, motors and generators windings
where induction is desired..

Doesn't our power infrastructure use only twisted multi-strand
where-as phone and CAT line are still solid conductors..

In consideration of this,
would you revise your areas of vulnerability?
I'd most certainly want my phone line out of my computer and
my ethernet disconnected from my router and cameras...
Spaceweather.com offers warning messages,, if i recall correctly,,
quite a real nice service,, if so,, The pubic alet system would've
been usefull too,, but too many people can't get the broadcast
channels we once got,, now that digital has been forced on us...
We are more vulnerable now than ever since many people are not
tuned to Radio or TV , like they were a few decades ago.. d...z

...
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Superstorm near-miss calculations

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:03 pm

In terms of lines getting burned out by overloads, I "think" that twisted pairs would be just as susceptible. Twisted pairs guarantee that both wires get the same amount of induction. Then, if the system in question is just using the potential difference between the two, any induction cancels out. But if the induced current is powerful enough to burn out the wires, that will still happen.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

The Ratio of H/O Ions In The Solar Wind Is 1500 (+ or – 300)

Unread postby Maol » Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:27 am

Why is the source of water in the Solar System and on Earth a mystery?

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1029/2010GL045389?
Maol
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: The Ratio of H/O Ions In The Solar Wind Is 1500 (+ or –

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:44 pm

Maol wrote:Why is the source of water in the Solar System and on Earth a mystery?

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1029/2010GL045389?
Because mainstream planetary formation rules out the Earth retaining water when it was young and hot. Therefore they require it to come from somewhere else, hence the confusion. Science has backed itself into many of these hypothetical corners.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Previous

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron