Searching \ for '[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=sun+has+gone+out
Search entire site for: ':: The sun has gone out - still'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still'
2009\03\05@072444 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
The sun continues to behave in ways not seen in modern scientific history.
Nobody interested in such things says nowt.

Now the guardians have started moving the goalposts.

Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at historically low
levels (about non existent) and the new cycle refusing to start - now
arguably 1 year + late and no sign.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

/CONSPIRACY THEORY - THE CATCHER IN THE RYE/NOAA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
THAT THE SUN HAS GONE OUT* AND HAVE STARTED FUDGING THEIR GRAPHS.
/ No Change.

An interesting thing is that NOAA suddenly started fudging part of their
graphs! - it seems they don't want people to know that the current results
are far far outside projections.
Up until December's data (published early January) the prediction high/low
bounds were plotted. A reference was given to another page where the basis
of the predictions was discussed. The reference is unchanged and the page of
explanations is unchanged BUT the bounds curves suddenly jumped sideways
about 5 months on the January graph. The graphs are usually updated a few
days into the following month.BUT the January data didn't appear until about
3 weeks into February - something I've not seen before. And, when the graphs
did appear they had the shifted bounds.

SO I emailed the NOAA space prediction people and was told that from now on
they would just be shifting the curve arbitrarily sideways to suit how
things looked. I asked about the discussion on the related page but they
didn't comment.

So I sent them a more detailed comment and pointed out that the old curves
were of some use, but the new curves had no basis in fact, even though the
page said that they did. After several days with no comment on this I sent a
comment to another higher/different NOAA email address gained from their
contact page, pointing out the 'problems". No response yet. I wait with
eager anticipation their ongoing forays into new science.

__________

EVEN WORSE CONSPIRACY THEORY.
This is more towards SciFi / Nature is ganging up on us.
Doesn't mean it may not be true ;-).

* yeah. I know. Of course it hasn't gone out. probably. :-). But it sure is
acting weird like. Some other indicators are showing increasing signs of
anomalous behaviour. Others seem fairy constant.

Maybe it's time to start digging a bunker underneath my swimming pool? I
wonder what the price of lead is like these days?

I ...

Really though - best outlandish guess seems to be a trend towards continuing
low activity with a consequent fall in solar field >  rise in celestial
incoming gamma rays > increased atmospheric aerosols >  aerosols > more
clouds > higher albedo > more cooling > global cooling. Good fun theory
anyway. Should see a trend within a year or few at this rate. Stay tuned.

Sequester your carbon while ye may. If things happen as they may, although
it does seem outlandishly unlikely, 10 or so years from now you'll be able
to get credits for burning carbon.

Hopefully, the fact that the next iceage was statistically and historically
due at about the time of Christ's nativity, and is now about 2000 years
overdue, has got nothing to do with things. Some suggest that the Roman's
saved us all, with their localised spurt of industry and CO2 giving the
about to flip system enough of a kick to keep it stable for about another
2000 years or so - so far, anyway :-). While some people would love to see
thousands of feet of ice on NY, I feel that a need for me to move to, say,
Northern Australia, would be very sad. Bali may not be quite so bad.


              Russell
              6 Feb 2009
                  Remember who told you first.
                  Forget it all if I prove to be wrong :-)




_________________________

1st email to NOAA SWPC:


NOAA
Space Weather Prediction Centre.


Your web page http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
shows the ongoing "ISES Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression", and
includes prediction bounds.
It is intimated on this page that the prediction bounds are based on the May
2 2008 prediction update. [This is not actually absolutely stated but this
is the very clear conclusion liable to be drawn by anyone who would be
interested in looking at this page.]

Your page http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html explains the
basis of the May 2 2008 predictions.

Up until the December 31st graph update the prediction curves have remained
consistent for some months, apart from predictions prior to the current date
being removed. [I personally think that leaving the prior prediction curves
in place would be useful, but that's not what I'm writing about.]

On the January 31st graph update (altered on February 24th) the prediction
curves appear to have been have been time shifted 'right' by about 5 months*
but the claimed prediction dates have not altered and the prediction page
has not changed.

You may wish to either move the prediction curves back to their prior
location or, if the basis of prediction has in fact changed, update the
prediction note on the graph and the data on the prediction page.


 regards


             Russell McMahon
             New Zealand.

* Based solely on visual inspection the curves appear to be slightly
different in shape than previously and may represent a whole new set of
predictions. The much longer than usual delay in publishing the prior
month's data suggests that major changes may have been made.



2009\03\05@075534 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> The sun continues to behave in ways not seen in modern scientific
> history. Nobody interested in such things says nowt.
>
> Now the guardians have started moving the goalposts.
>
> Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at
> historically low levels (about non existent) and the new cycle
> refusing to start - now arguably 1 year + late and no sign.

Of course.  It doesn't make sense to invest in a new cycle in the middle of
a recession.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2009\03\07@021633 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Mar 5, 2009, at 5:56 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Russell McMahon wrote:
>> The sun continues to behave in ways not seen in modern scientific
>> history. Nobody interested in such things says nowt.
>>
>> Now the guardians have started moving the goalposts.
>>
>> Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at
>> historically low levels (about non existent) and the new cycle
>> refusing to start - now arguably 1 year + late and no sign.
>
> Of course.  It doesn't make sense to invest in a new cycle in the  
> middle of
> a recession.

What next?  Will the Sun need a bailout package, too?  ;-)

Nate

2009\03\07@083759 by Minto Witteveen

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> The sun continues to behave in ways not seen in modern scientific
> history. Nobody interested in such things says nowt.
>
> Now the guardians have started moving the goalposts.
>
> Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at
> historically low levels (about non existent) and the new cycle
> refusing to start - now arguably 1 year + late and no sign.
>Russell,

Russell,
Be very carefull with interpreting sunspot numbers (which is something very
different forom the number of sunspots)
Seel also the latest Solar Opdate column on the ARRL website:
www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/03/06/10688/?nc=1
Your " moving the goalposts" opbservation is also explained. Nothing
sinister there :-)

Regards,
Minto Witteveen

2009\03\07@103854 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> The sun continues to behave in ways not seen in modern scientific
>> history. Nobody interested in such things says nowt.

>> Now the guardians have started moving the goalposts.

>> Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at
>> historically low levels (about non existent) and the new cycle
>> refusing to start - now arguably 1 year + late and no sign.


> Russell,
> Be very carefull with interpreting sunspot numbers (which is something
> very
> different forom the number of sunspots)

Actually, not "very different from" - just "different from" - it's an
attempt to deal with the way that sunspots tend to cluster - presumably on
the basis that a number of close sunspots tend to have a common source /
cause so the groups are given more weighting than individual spots by a
factor of 10.

This leads to the ERRONEOUS impression that is given on that ARRL page that
the number is NOT an indicator of activity, when in fact it's an attempt to
produce an activity indicator for spotty data (groan).

ie at times of VERY VERY VERY low sunspot activity, such as now, and the
last year or so, it is often possible to identify number of groups and
number of spots just by looking at the number.
eg 12 = 1 + 2.   24 = 2+4.
But, of course, when at more typical levels (eg 90%+ of the time previously,
then the result is not so easy to adduce. eg a sunspot number of 65 cannot
mean 6 groups and 5 total spots. So at most their can be 5 groups = 5 + 15.
BUT there may be 4 groups = 4 + 25, or 3 + 35. For high numbers it gets very
uncertain BUT the aim never was to convey groups + spots numbers with the
index - it was and is intended as an activity indicator. The 1:10 weighting
is presumably an empirical ratio that just happens to "work" in periods of
low activity. It was devised over 160 years ago (in 1848) and is still being
used, so his empirical constants can't have been too too bad.

               Sunspot number = a x (bx groups + all_spots)
               a <= 1, b = 10.

What makes that ARRL page even wronger is that there is also a multiplier
added to the calculation (a above) for how good or bad your observing
equipment is, how good your eyes are, how long you have been staring at the
sun, ...  Well, the first anyway - ie observing situation. This "scaling
factor" can vary results by perhaps 20% without people minding too much -
the aim is to get a consistent result withing\ the same record. But that
means cross comparison between records needs to be done with care.

AND the ARRL man seems to be trying to be the sort of person who encourages
conspiracy theorists - by seeming to make up soothing theories of his own as
he foes along. Nothing excites conspiracy theorists more than being offered
"manifestly flimsy" [tm] excuses.

ie he invokes " ...  a daily financial news organ grossly misquoted an
astrophysicist, claiming he ..." and thereby dismisses the "fact" [tm] that
there are numerous crank.. er scientists 'out there' who are quir\te happily
holding quite similar theories without having to rely on said financial
organ or physicist. Gargoyling for the Maunder minimum maudlin meanderings
(just the 1st two please)  will turn up all the discussion and conspiracy
theories desired. Also some good science. As is generally well known by all
and sundry by now, a period of very very very low sunspot activity AND thus
sunspot number on the 1800's (when  ~ 0 + 0 = 00 was the order of the day
for years) corresponded to an exceptionally low decades long low temperature
period in Europe when the Thames froze at London and a large percentage of
Scandinavians died. There are arguments that this was a geographically
localised effect, and that may be so (and even if it was the base cause MAY
have been correlated with sunspot activity) but true or not, it's not
something that one scientist and one financial organ brought about.

As I noted in my original post, there are theories of how sunspot activity
MIGHT correlate with earth's weather conditions.  Gargoyle knows should
anyone care to know.

I also noted (or was that only to NOAA?) that SOME of the other indicators
(proton end electron energies, Hydrogen line RF, ...) are also producing
somewhat anomalous results while others are not. ie the sun is doing
something interesting but not utterly absolutely different than normal,

As for moving the goalposts, at least they now have a message saying that
they are doing so. But the explanation given, while an adequate statement of
what they are doing, is a poor explanation of what the graphs represent. It
is probably not reasonable to assume the same max and min as they assumed
before, the rate of change is almost certainly going to be different and in
fact anything else may well happen. The "most scientific" choices available
to them are to either leave the old indicators in place - which shows how
unexpected the current results are, or remove the indicators totally from
now on because their is as yet no better scientifically based idea of what
is expected to happen. Just sliding the old curves across is worse than
useless. Whatever.


> Seel also the latest Solar Opdate column on the ARRL website:
> http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2009/03/06/10688/?nc=1

I seen :-)

> Your " moving the goalposts" opbservation is also explained. Nothing
> sinister there :-)

As above, maybe just stupidity and lack of rigour. But I am sceptical about
the 'deep silence' from the keepers of the norm, who are far from silent
when reality's sometimes apparently random fluctuations seem to confirm
their pet theories :-).

The sea ice has interesting things to say (record thaws, record freezes) but
nobody can with certainty yet say what it's saying. 1000+ feet of ice over
NY city, or 15+ feet of water over Florida should settle it one way or the
other :-).



        Russell


2009\03\08@003305 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Mar 7, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> The sea ice has interesting things to say (record thaws, record  
> freezes) but
> nobody can with certainty yet say what it's saying. 1000+ feet of  
> ice over
> NY city, or 15+ feet of water over Florida should settle it one way  
> or the
> other :-).

My favorite quote for this is:

"The people who can't tell us if it's going to rain with any certainty  
this Friday, are the same people saying we all need to drive Prius  
cars or the world's coming to an end."

:-)

Nate

2009\03\10@112928 by Minto Witteveen

picon face
> Actually, not "very different from" - just "different from" - it's an
> attempt to deal with the way that sunspots tend to cluster - presumably on
> the basis that a number of close sunspots tend to have a common source /
> cause so the groups are given more weighting than individual spots by a
> factor of 10.

Okay.. Well it looks like my assumption on that part was way off, you
obviously have studied the subject extensively J.
But...


> AND the ARRL man seems to be trying to be the sort of person who
> encourages
> conspiracy theorists - by seeming to make up soothing theories of his own
> as
> he foes along. Nothing excites conspiracy theorists more than being
> offered
> "manifestly flimsy" [tm] excuses.

I still wonder about your conspiracy suspicions. To me it seems
exceptionally unlikely that worldwide al the solar "experts" are conspiring
together to keep the rest of us in the dark about upcoming disaster..


{Quote hidden}

A new Maunder minimum MAY be upcoming, but with our very limited knowledge
it's impossible to predict at this moment. There have been other periods of
prolonged low solar activity at least comparable the the current state of
the sun (both sunspot number AND number of sunspots J), for instance
somewhere in the beginning of the 20th century. The next cycle was then just
slightly below average (as I remember. And not form personal experience of
course).

I think our knowledge of the inner workings of the sun and its direct effect
on our pale blue dot is so limited that we cannot even determine with
certainty that there is an anomaly at all..



> I also noted (or was that only to NOAA?) that SOME of the other indicators
> (proton end electron energies, Hydrogen line RF, ...) are also producing
> somewhat anomalous results while others are not. ie the sun is doing
> something interesting but not utterly absolutely different than normal,

Quite.

{Quote hidden}

Stupidity I think not. But not understanding the process, while trying to
explain it anyhow AND making predictions based on not understanding...



Minto Witteveen.

2009\03\18@105544 by Diego Sierra

picon face
Hi!

> I still wonder about your conspiracy suspicions. To me it seems
> exceptionally unlikely that worldwide al the solar "experts" are conspiring
> together to keep the rest of us in the dark about upcoming disaster..

Asking about the sunspots to a solar astrophysics (where I work), he
told me that the spots has about 6 months of delay for what is
predicted (based only on the past cycles, as each one is completely
different in the details from each other). Usually the start of them
has a big slope, which does not happens yet with this expected new
one.

He said there are currently two theories:

  a) We are moving towards a minimum, like Maunder's one.
  b) The next cycle will start, as usual, but its maximum will be THE
maximum so far.

About how this will affect Earth temperature, disregarding the human
activity, he says Earth temperature behavior is not symmetrical in
respect to solar activity, i.e., less activity means lower temps.
range than higher activity.

Also, they are not thinking - yet - on ringing the alarm :-)

-- Diego.

2009\03\18@112405 by Chris Smolinski

flavicon
face
>Hi!
>
>>  I still wonder about your conspiracy suspicions. To me it seems
>>  exceptionally unlikely that worldwide al the solar "experts" are conspiring
>>  together to keep the rest of us in the dark about upcoming disaster..
>
>Asking about the sunspots to a solar astrophysics (where I work), he
>told me that the spots has about 6 months of delay for what is
>predicted (based only on the past cycles, as each one is completely
>different in the details from each other). Usually the start of them
>has a big slope, which does not happens yet with this expected new
>one.
>
>He said there are currently two theories:
>
>    a) We are moving towards a minimum, like Maunder's one.
>    b) The next cycle will start, as usual, but its maximum will be THE
>maximum so far.

As an amateur radio operator, we're often talking about solar
activity, or more often lately, complaining about the *lack* of solar
activity.  I've been into radio since 1978, so I've been through a
few solar cycles.  I regularly check the various predictions of the
upcoming cycle, and while they are being modified, I'm not sure how
much of that is nefarious, and how much is just the usual "hmm,
things seem to be running behind, let's push things back again".

Many of the sunspots being detected are still old Cycle 23 polarity.
I regularly visit http://www.spaceweather.com/ where I am greeted
with a picture of a blank sun, and a mention that the holographic
image from the back of the sun also shows no sunspots.

From my purely amateur (no pun intended) perspective, professionals
don't have all that much data to work with (23 solar cycles, many of
which occurred during a period of "low" activity, plus whatever data
they can glean from tree rings and whatever else). There's lots of
theories about how solar cycles work, most of which seem to be "we
have no idea how this works, but it kinda/sorta fits the data". If
there are long term (several hundred year) cycles involved, we don't
have the data to detect them.



--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com

2009\03\18@202446 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Looks like a big tasty 'Nilla Wafer, doesn't it?  :-)

<www.spaceweather.com/images2009/18mar09/midi512_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=
2n3qpghuarjcctt5bcpveovus1>

New hams just don't know what it's like to hear 10 meters filled with
wall-to-wall JA's... yet...

Nate

{Original Message removed}


'[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still'
2009\04\03@210722 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
Latest from "Space Weather" below.
They say that 2008's "no spots for 73% of the time" was a 95 year low, but
they don't say what no spots for 87% of the time is.
Maintaining a rolling year comparison may be interestinf.


 Russell

_________________

Space Weather News for April 2, 2009
http://spaceweather.com

SPOTLESS SUNS:  Yesterday, NASA announced that the sun has plunged into the
deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.  Sunspots have all but vanished
and consequently the sun has become very quiet. In 2008, the sun had no
spots 73% of the time, a 95-year low. In 2009, sunspots are even more
scarce, with the "spotless rate" jumping to 87%.  We are currently
experiencing a stretch of 25 continuous days uninterrupted by sunspots--and
there's no end in sight.

This is a big event, but it is not unprecedented. Similarly deep solar
minima were common in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, and each time
the sun recovered with a fairly robust solar maximum.  That's probably what
will happen in the present case, although no one can say for sure. This is
the first deep solar minimum of the Space Age, and the first one we have
been able to observe using modern technology.  Is it like others of the
past?  Or does this solar minimum have its own unique characteristics that
we will discover for the first time as the cycle unfolds?  These questions
are at the cutting edge of solar physics.

You can monitor the progress of solar minimum with a new "Spotless Days
Counter" on spaceweather.com.  Instead of counting sunspots, we're counting
no sunspots.  Daily updated totals tell you how many spotless days there
have been in a row, in this year, and in the entire solar cycle.
Comparisons to historical benchmarks put it all in perspective.  Visit
http://spaceweather.com for data.


2009\04\04@091109 by olin piclist

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
> They say that 2008's "no spots for 73% of the time" was a 95 year
> low,

Considering the sun has been around for 4 1/2 billion years, a 95 year event
shouldn't be considered unusual.  In fact it should be well well within
"normal".

Put another way, this comment contains no evidence at all of anything out of
the ordinary, only about how skewed our perception is if the event gets this
kind of attention.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.


'[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still'
2009\06\01@072550 by Diego Sierra
picon face
On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Russell McMahon <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at historically low
> levels (about non existent) and the new cycle refusing to start - now
> arguably 1 year + late and no sign.

Hi!

First sunspot so far :-)

  ftp://ftp.iac.es/out/sunspot/

Cheers,
Diego.

2009\06\01@234656 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at historically
>> low
>> levels (about non existent) and the new cycle refusing to start - now
>> arguably 1 year + late and no sign.

> Hi!
> First sunspot so far :-)
>   ftp://ftp.iac.es/out/sunspot/

That's looking more real than anything for quite a while.
Daily summary for last quarter here.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/quar_DSD.txt

Note that sunspot number begines with 2.
23 = 2 regions with 3 "spotlets".
No other 2x reading in last quarter.

14th May had a 18 (1 area with 8 spotlets) and others have been mid 1x.

Maybe the sun is waking up again, at last.
Maybe.


            Russell

2009\06\16@162934 by Marechiare

picon face
> Maybe the sun is waking up again, at last.
> Maybe.

AF 447 ?

2009\06\16@231042 by John Gardner

picon face
Departures from the perceived norm are interesting, however
shallow the database. Perhaps we'll live to understand it :)


'[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still'
2009\07\03@110946 by Alan B. Pearce
face picon face
Looks like the sun may be awakening ...

http://tinyurl.com/nqpox8

Sunspots Ahoy ... my colleagues will be pleased.


'[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still'
2009\10\06@080637 by Russell McMahon
face picon face
>> 2009/7/4 Alan B. Pearce .....Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspam@spam@stfc.ac.uk
>> Looks like the sun may be awakening ...
>> http://tinyurl.com/nqpox8
>> Sunspots Ahoy ... my colleagues will be pleased.
But, no.
That proved to be a temporay aberration in a consistent assymptote towards a
very dead sun indeed.
The sun is still continuing it's downwards activity plod. It's very hard to
plod towards zero when you are already bumping along zero.
And still "the establishment" says largely nowt *.

    http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

What part of "gone out" don't we und ...
No, of course it hasn't.
But it is surely doing something vastly unusual.

* Not quite true. Some are now saying things like (non verbatim) "while the
trend in manmade global warming is continuing, it is being masked in the
short term by natural cyclical variations in solar output and we can expect
that warming may not 'get back on track' for a decade ot so but every care
must be taken to keep up efforts to combat arming so that we aren't caught
out when the short term solar fluctuation ends ...". All of which may well
be true. And may not. And nobody really knows. but you won't have any
problem getting people to take your money and giving an expert opinion in
either direction.

Very interesting graph though.



_________________

Apposite abstract here.
It would be interesting to see what they made of the current cycle.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/576167w517041j37/










> Looks like the sun may be awakening ...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nqpox8
>
> Sunspots Ahoy ... my colleagues will be pleased.
> -

2009\10\13@075936 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>>> 2009/7/4 Alan B. Pearce Alan.B.PearcespamKILLspamstfc.ac.uk
>>> Looks like the sun may be awakening ...
>>> http://tinyurl.com/nqpox8
>>> Sunspots Ahoy ... my colleagues will be pleased.
>But, no.
>That proved to be a temporay aberration in a consistent
>assymptote towards a very dead sun indeed.
>The sun is still continuing it's downwards activity plod.
>It's very hard to plod towards zero when you are already
>bumping along zero.

Doesn't matter now anyway ... ISRO have lost contact with their space craft,
on which "my" instrument was carried ...

Boo hoo ...

2009\10\13@081719 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
>The sun is still continuing it's downwards activity plod.
>It's very hard to plod towards zero when you are already
>bumping along zero.

Doesn't matter now anyway ... ISRO have lost contact with their space craft,
on which "my" instrument was carried ...

Boo hoo ...

Sad.
But, all our children have to leave hpme and make a life of their own.
Think of what fun it will be having.
When did it get lost?

____________

Current sunspot data at end.
5th column.
Lots of 0's.

Sunspot number = areas x 10 + spotlets.
So 14 = 1 area with 4 small spots.
25 = 2 areas + 5 spotlets total.
eg 34 = obscure
could be 3 + 4 or 2 + 14 ...

BUT since October 2nd its 0 x 10 + 0 = 0and the burst in late
September hardly put a blip on the graph.

Start hoarding carbon :-).

It may be worth its weight in, er, diamonds in a few years time.



        Russell




#                         Sunspot       Stanford GOES10
#           Radio  SESC     Area          Solar  X-Ray  ------ Flares ------
#           Flux  Sunspot  10E-6   New     Mean  Bkgd    X-Ray      Optical
#  Date     10.7cm Number  Hemis. Regions Field  Flux   C  M  X  S  1  2  3
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 09 13   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 14   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 15   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 16   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 17   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 18   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 19   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 20   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 21   72     11       10      1    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 22   75     26       70      1    -999   A1.4   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 23   76     31      140      0    -999   A1.3   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 24   75     32      180      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  1  0  0  0
2009 09 25   72     25       80      0    -999   A0.0   1  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 26   72     14       60      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 27   72     11       10      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 28   73     11       10      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 29   72     14       40      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 09 30   72     11       10      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 01   72     11       10      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 02   72      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 03   72      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 04   71      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 05   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 06   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 07   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 08   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 09   69      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 10   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 11   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0
2009 10 12   70      0        0      0    -999   A0.0   0  0  0  0  0  0  0

> >The sun is still continuing it's downwards activity plod.
> >It's very hard to plod towards zero when you are already
> >bumping along zero.
>
> Doesn't matter now anyway ... ISRO have lost contact with their space craft,
> on which "my" instrument was carried ...
>
> Boo hoo ...
>
>

2009\10\13@085009 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Sad.

very, it still had a useable lifetime left.

>But, all our children have to leave hpme and make a life of their own.
>Think of what fun it will be having.

Whizz, around the moon we go again ...

>When did it get lost?

Umm, not exactly sure, sometime during the last 9 weeks I have been away
from my desk (I had other problems in the form of an ailing father to
content with to really notice the date). I do remember seeing about 2 column
inches on it in the Dominion Post, and it also got mentioned on the radio
news in NZ.

I guess the trouble now is that it is a piece of space junk in
semi-permanent orbit around the moon. I think the "End Of Life" plan was to
crash it into the moon like they did with Smart-1, partly to observe the
resultant dust cloud (at least Smart-1 made a better cloud than the NASA
attempt ... ) and partly so there is no junk to dodge on future moon
missions. However it will apparently crash into the moon in about 3 years,
as the gravitational anomalies perturb the orbit until eventually it
crashes.

2009\10\13@104742 by John Ferrell

face
flavicon
face
In spite of the lack of sunspots HF amateur radio propagation has greatly
improved in the last few days. 20m has been especially improved with 15m
opening after a long quiet time. 10m was open in the US most of Saturday
afternoon.

Could the correspondence of propagation and sunspots be over stated?
I am just a user, not an expert!

John Ferrell  W8CCW

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of
justice is no virtue."
-Barry Goldwater
"You don't get harmony when everybody sings the same note."
-Doug Floyd

{Original Message removed}

2009\10\13@111814 by Russell McMahon

face picon face
> In spite of the lack of sunspots HF amateur radio propagation has greatly
> improved in the last few days. 20m has been especially improved with 15m
> opening after a long quiet time. 10m was open in the US most of Saturday
> afternoon.

> Could the correspondence of propagation and sunspots be over stated?
> I am just a user, not an expert!

Is that literally 'in the last few days' or was it in late September?
There was a brief burst of sunspot activity from about September 21st
to October 1st.
'All quiet on the Western Front' since then.
There are other solar activity indicators, but they also looked rather quiet.
The solar radio flux and xray levels have not shown the same almost
complete null that the sunspot activity has been showing.


Russell

Sig:
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of
> justice is no virtue."
> -Barry Goldwater

Sigrep:
I think we all agree with Barry on the meaning of "extremism".
But there may be some divergence on exactly what "liberty" and
"justice" mean :-).

2009\10\13@230700 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>> John Ferrell wrote:
>> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of
>> justice is no virtue."
>> -Barry Goldwater
>
> Sigrep:
> I think we all agree with Barry on the meaning of "extremism".
> But there may be some divergence on exactly what "liberty" and
> "justice" mean :-).

Other Goldwater quotes are easier to interpret:
"Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw
off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea".

2009\10\14@014822 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> John Ferrell wrote:
>>> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
>>> of
>>> justice is no virtue."
>>> -Barry Goldwater
>>
>> Sigrep:
>> I think we all agree with Barry on the meaning of "extremism".
>> But there may be some divergence on exactly what "liberty" and
>> "justice" mean :-).
>
> Other Goldwater quotes are easier to interpret:
> "Sometimes I think this country would be better off if we could just saw
> off the Eastern Seaboard and let it float out to sea".

That's pretty funny. :-)





'[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still'
2011\06\18@151753 by RussellMc
face picon face
Time for an update. This thread started March 6th 2009:

Mini Ice age coming? or about here already?
NASA / NOAA / NSO / ... et al suspect so.
___

In early 2009 I wrote to  NASA/NOAA pointing out that they  were fudging the
data on their sunspot charts and hiding the fact that sunspot progression
levels were far below officially predicted levels and becoming increasingly
so with time. (They were moving the "prediction" curve each month to "track"
the data). I imagine that I wasn't telling them anything they didn't know.
What it did tell them was that an increasing number of people were noticing
what they were doing.
..
I was gratified to receive an email reply with an  internal comment attached
which showed that other people had noticed and were also "commenting".
"Here's another one of those emails." :-)
The actual reply was essentially contentless.

Back then the indications were that we were moving into a period of
declining solar sunspot maxima with  a cycle shape quite unlike anything
seen for hundreds of years.
This was well known to researchers in the field but very little public
mention was made. (There seemed to be a "pull out, pull out" hope and expect
ion that the sun would 'come through' but it didn't happen). So, for about 2
years after that the official line  was "business as usual", but now all
major agencies are noting that we seem to be heading into a period of
extremely low sunspot activity with :Maunder minimum" and "Dalton minimum"
and "little Ice Age" being increasingly heard in more mainstream  scientific
circles.

Note that it is NOT at all certain that if the progression continues that we
will experience the extremely low winter temperatures of the Maunder minimum
The correlation between solar activity and terra-temperatures (ie us) is
tenuous and not well understood. So much so that the received and frequently
repeated truth for the last decade is that "solar variations are small and
do not have a major effect on earth's temperature". That perception seems to
be fading away, whether incorrectly or not.

Reasonably worst case we are in for a decade or few of REALLY cold winters -
on a scale not seen in living memory.

Unreasonably worst case this is the start of the long overdue next true ice
age, which "was due to start" around the time of Christ. We can hope not.

There are various populist and scientific sites proclaiming the new truth.
While most of the following are from sites with an anti-global-warming bias,
the new perspectives are being noted by all major atmospheric agencies.

Useful. Somewhat scary
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11516/Geologist-Dr-Don-Easterbrook-My-cooling-prediction-seems-to-be-coming-to-pass-with-no-global-warming-above-the-1998-temperatures-and-a-gradually-deepening-cooling-since-then

On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity
on the future climate on Earth
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710,
2010
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf

Annoying video, but some information
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11513/Watch-Now-Weather-Channel-Founder--Meteorologist-John-Coleman-on-the-Quiet-Sun

NASA scientist prepared to admit his prior predictions were (probably) wrong
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11519/NASA-scientist-reverses-sunspot-prediction-bolstering-global-cooling-theory

Useful. Biased
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11515/Warmist-Joe-Romm-If-the-sun-goes-into-hibernation-it-wont-stop-global-warming


NB: Note that none of this addresses the core Global Warming premises. If
anthropogenic GW is occurring it may well continue throughout a little, or
big, ice age but the effects may be swamped by the solar effects.


          Russell


On 6 March 2009 00:23, Russell McMahon <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2011\06\19@135912 by John Ferrell

face
flavicon
face
On 6/18/2011 3:17 PM, RussellMc wrote:
> Time for an update. This thread started March 6th 2009:
>
> Mini Ice age coming? or about here already?
> NASA / NOAA / NSO / ... et al suspect so.
> ___
Just curious....
What are the input parameters used to compute the solar activity?


--
*John Ferrell W8CCW*

**//**

"In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons."

- Herodotus, Greek historian, 5th century B.C.**

**

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...