2nd active region just formed on the sun.

[Michael Mozina]

https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/la ... 4_0131.mp4

The sun has been sporting a pretty good active region this week near the equator that has produced a small sunspot, but over the last couple of days a new active region has formed a little further southeast from the existing active region. It could be that the sun is sun is finally starting to exit the quiet phase.

They way these new active regions form highly resembles the type of thing you'd expect to see during volcanic activity. It really does have the appearance of a new volcanic region forming on a sub-photosphere surface and spawning electrical activity as the volcanic elements start to get ionized by the electrical activity in the solar atmosphere.

[Cargo]

I use this site as well. https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/re ... mages.html

[Maol]

http://sidc.oma.be/

https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

[Michael Mozina]

http://sidc.oma.be/

https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

I think the effect shows up best in SDO iron line images:

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/lat ... 4_0131.mp4

At the beginning of the video you can see on active region very near the equator, with a small bright area to the right, slightly below the equator. By about mid-movie you can see the small bright area start to grow and become much larger.

You can also see the effect show up in the magnetogram images as well.

http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/movie ... lor_2d.mpg

[Brent72]

Do you think we are entering a 'solar minimum' ? So far this year we've had no sunspots on 78% of days (77% for 2019) according to https://www.spaceweather.com/
If so, the next question is do you think this will cause cooler temps on Earth?

[Michael Mozina]

Do you think we are entering a 'solar minimum' ? So far this year we've had no sunspots on 78% of days (77% for 2019) according to https://www.spaceweather.com/
If so, the next question is do you think this will cause cooler temps on Earth?

That's a trickier question when we try to factor in things like the heating effects of man-made carbon dioxide. We'd probably just get a short term reprieve from global warming.

I will say this: I've watched the sun for nearly three decades in high energy wavelengths with with early Yohkoh, GOES and SOHO images, and I've never seen anything like this entire last solar cycle. Even at it's peak, the sun's high energy atmospheric activity was nothing like previous peaks in previous cycles in terms of x-ray observable "active regions". They were really few and far between this whole solar cycle, and quite minor in size and activity compared to previous solar cycles. You'd have to go al the way back to 171A and 195A SOHO and TRACE imagery to see just what an "active" solar cycle looks like.

Sunspots will eventually form above 'active regions', but only when the activity in x-rays gets large enough to generate sunspot activity. There's one really minor active region in the northern hemisphere right now but it's evidently not active (hot) enough to generate a sunspot.

There is a correlation between active regions in x-rays and sunspot activity at the surface of the photosphere. The reason we've had so few sunspots is because we've had few if any particularly 'active' region in higher energy wavelengths on the solar surface. If you watch the 131A, 94A or 335A SDO images, they tend to show some of the most active regions in terms of high temperature coronal loop activity. There just hasn't been as much activity to observe this solar cycle and therefore few if any sunspots.

When we measure solar output we really have to start using SDO equipment to better analyze the output in higher energy wavelengths.

I have thought about what "ice ages" might represent in the context of an electric universe. Our region of the galaxy may experience higher and lower electrical current flows from time to time, which may in turn have a dramatic effect in terms of the surface temperature of our planet. It may not have a great effect on the white light region of the EM spectrum, but it might have a much more dramatic effect on the x-ray and gamma-ray spectrum. It could also have an effect on the overall current flowing into and through our planet.

[Brent72]

Thanks for that information Michael. What do you think is the mechanism for active regions leading to a sunspot? Isn't a sunspot just a 'hole' in the photosphere (i.e. absence of granulation) which allows us to see the black layer beneath?

[paladin17]

M1.1 flare today.

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks for that information Michael. What do you think is the mechanism for active regions leading to a sunspot? Isn't a sunspot just a 'hole' in the photosphere (i.e. absence of granulation) which allows us to see the black layer beneath?

https://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm?

I think the sun's atmosphere is mass and temperature separated and layered by atomic weight, with a mostly hydrogen corona sitting on top of a mostly helium chromosphere, which sits on top of a mostly neon photosphere, which also sits on top of a mostly silicon plasma layer. The highly electrically active electrode surface sits approximately 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere.

When an "active" region forms above the electrode, it heats the plasma directly above it, pumping massive amounts of heat into the silicon plasma layer. If there's enough heat generated in that layer, the silicon material rises up and through the 700KM photosphere, where it eventually meets up with the much less dense chromosphere and eventually cools off and flows back into the sun.

[neilwilkes]

Do you think we are entering a 'solar minimum' ? So far this year we've had no sunspots on 78% of days (77% for 2019) according to https://www.spaceweather.com/
If so, the next question is do you think this will cause cooler temps on Earth?

That's a trickier question when we try to factor in things like the heating effects of man-made carbon dioxide. We'd probably just get a short term reprieve from global warming.

I will say this: I've watched the sun for nearly three decades in high energy wavelengths with with early Yohkoh, GOES and SOHO images, and I've never seen anything like this entire last solar cycle. Even at it's peak, the sun's high energy atmospheric activity was nothing like previous peaks in previous cycles in terms of x-ray observable "active regions". They were really few and far between this whole solar cycle, and quite minor in size and activity compared to previous solar cycles. You'd have to go al the way back to 171A and 195A SOHO and TRACE imagery to see just what an "active" solar cycle looks like.

Sunspots will eventually form above 'active regions', but only when the activity in x-rays gets large enough to generate sunspot activity. There's one really minor active region in the northern hemisphere right now but it's evidently not active (hot) enough to generate a sunspot.

There is a correlation between active regions in x-rays and sunspot activity at the surface of the photosphere. The reason we've had so few sunspots is because we've had few if any particularly 'active' region in higher energy wavelengths on the solar surface. If you watch the 131A, 94A or 335A SDO images, they tend to show some of the most active regions in terms of high temperature coronal loop activity. There just hasn't been as much activity to observe this solar cycle and therefore few if any sunspots.

When we measure solar output we really have to start using SDO equipment to better analyze the output in higher energy wavelengths.

I have thought about what "ice ages" might represent in the context of an electric universe. Our region of the galaxy may experience higher and lower electrical current flows from time to time, which may in turn have a dramatic effect in terms of the surface temperature of our planet. It may not have a great effect on the white light region of the EM spectrum, but it might have a much more dramatic effect on the x-ray and gamma-ray spectrum. It could also have an effect on the overall current flowing into and through our planet.

Michael, do you really seriously believe that CO2 is causing Global Warming, and that it is specifically man made CO2 doing it?

[Brent72]

You may already have seen this, but if not - I think some of you might be interested..

https://principia-scientific.org/on-the ... te-change/

Here are the salient points if you can't be bothered reading it all:

• The theory of carbon dioxide preventing energy from escaping from the Earth into space is nonsense

• Visible light is heating the Earth’s surface while x-rays and ultraviolet light heat the Earth's atmosphere.

• The x-rays and ultraviolet light are produced by solar flares and vary greatly during a sunspot cycle.

• Presently the sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum where sun spot activity is greatly reduced.

• The world needs to prepare a reliable safe source of energy (nuclear) so it can deal with the consequences of less energy coming from the sun.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, do you really seriously believe that CO2 is causing Global Warming, and that it is specifically man made CO2 doing it?

Yes, I do believe that C02 is causing global warming and that most it is man made.

I do however think that the issue is oversimplified by both sides of the argument. It's not clear how much the sun's variation in energy output contributes to climate change, and the Earth experiences hot and cold cycles that clearly have nothing to do with human activity. Even still, C02 levels have reached levels that are unprecedented based on what we measure in ice core samples, and C02 is only *one* of the unpleasant byproducts of continuing to rely upon fossil fuels for our energy needs. It's ridiculous IMO that we continue to rely on fossil fuels considering the fact that we could simply tap into the electric energy all around us and do away with the need for fossil fuels entirely. It's another sad legacy of astronomy being so ignorant of the role of electric fields in space.

[neilwilkes]

Michael, do you really seriously believe that CO2 is causing Global Warming, and that it is specifically man made CO2 doing it?

Yes, I do believe that C02 is causing global warming and that most it is man made.

I do however think that the issue is oversimplified by both sides of the argument. It's not clear how much the sun's variation in energy output contributes to climate change, and the Earth experiences hot and cold cycles that clearly have nothing to do with human activity. Even still, C02 levels have reached levels that are unprecedented based on what we measure in ice core samples, and C02 is only *one* of the unpleasant byproducts of continuing to rely upon fossil fuels for our energy needs. It's ridiculous IMO that we continue to rely on fossil fuels considering the fact that we could simply tap into the electric energy all around us and do away with the need for fossil fuels entirely. It's another sad legacy of astronomy being so ignorant of the role of electric fields in space.

I am actually very surprised to discover this - personally, the evidence that CO2 has absolutely sweet FA to do with temperature is so well established it is just not even funny. Look at the Mediaeval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period etc - no CO2 then, yet temperatures were much, much warmer than now (and we did not burn). Human CO2 output is minuscule, and if anything we were dangerously close to the level where photosynthesis & plant life would not have been possible - the exact numbers elude my memory but it is between 100 & 150ppm (parts per million) and I will be happy to share serious papers proving what I say. Termites emit more CO2 than humans, yet nobody is declaring war on termites.
CO2 is a trace gas - under 0.5% of the atmosphere - and what causes temperature rises is the Star we are a mere 8 light minutes away from. It is not the Solar TSI that is relevant here, but the energetic particles and our currently collapsing magnetic field that is the problem, and the 'warming' of the late 20th century was caused by a Solar activity higher than it had been for many centuries coupled with a seriously aggressive El Nino, and even though CO2 levels have steadily risen this century global temperatures have not.
The monthly NOAA maps are fiction - you will notice f you look carefully 2 very interesting facts:
1 - To show any 'warming' at all they are using the night time temperatures, not the daily average but a 24-hour one.
2 - Almost all of the world has no long term weather stations with reliable data.
3 - Both NASA & the ESA have had to admit the planet is getting greener with the increased CO2 levels. This is not a bad thing.

Please go check out realclimatescience.com - you will find all the details you need there, and you can also check suspicious0bservers.org and Ben's material on what is happening with the Global Electric Circuit (which is what causes all weather)

[neilwilkes]

Michael, do you really seriously believe that CO2 is causing Global Warming, and that it is specifically man made CO2 doing it?

Yes, I do believe that C02 is causing global warming and that most it is man made.

I do however think that the issue is oversimplified by both sides of the argument. It's not clear how much the sun's variation in energy output contributes to climate change, and the Earth experiences hot and cold cycles that clearly have nothing to do with human activity. Even still, C02 levels have reached levels that are unprecedented based on what we measure in ice core samples, and C02 is only *one* of the unpleasant byproducts of continuing to rely upon fossil fuels for our energy needs. It's ridiculous IMO that we continue to rely on fossil fuels considering the fact that we could simply tap into the electric energy all around us and do away with the need for fossil fuels entirely. It's another sad legacy of astronomy being so ignorant of the role of electric fields in space.

I am actually very surprised to discover this - personally, the evidence that CO2 has absolutely sweet FA to do with temperature is so well established it is just not even funny. Look at the Mediaeval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period etc - no CO2 then, yet temperatures were much, much warmer than now (and we did not burn). Human CO2 output is minuscule, and if anything we were dangerously close to the level where photosynthesis & plant life would not have been possible - the exact numbers elude my memory but it is between 100 & 150ppm (parts per million) and I will be happy to share serious papers proving what I say. Termites emit more CO2 than humans, yet nobody is declaring war on termites.
CO2 is a trace gas - under 0.5% of the atmosphere - and what causes temperature rises is the Star we are a mere 8 light minutes away from. It is not the Solar TSI that is relevant here, but the energetic particles and our currently collapsing magnetic field that is the problem, and the 'warming' of the late 20th century was caused by a Solar activity higher than it had been for many centuries coupled with a seriously aggressive El Nino, and even though CO2 levels have steadily risen this century global temperatures have not.
The monthly NOAA maps are fiction - you will notice f you look carefully 2 very interesting facts:
1 - To show any 'warming' at all they are using the night time temperatures, not the daily average but a 24-hour one.
2 - Almost all of the world has no long term weather stations with reliable data.
3 - Both NASA & the ESA have had to admit the planet is getting greener with the increased CO2 levels. This is not a bad thing.

Please go check out realclimatescience.com - you will find all the details you need there, and you can also check suspicious0bservers.org and Ben's material on what is happening with the Global Electric Circuit (which is what causes all weather)