Reply With Quote
i can see 4
Wow...
My link on sunspots actually shows three in my sig! Been a long time since we had sunspots!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-25-2009 at 01:59 PM.
i can see 4
i spotted the sun outside a few time
........and the point is?
Not speaking for WC but...
from just this site: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php
Sunspots, Solar Flares, Coronal Mass Ejections and their influence on Earth:Coronal Mass Ejections (shown left) and solar flares are extremely large explosions on the photosphere. In just a few minutes, the flares heat to several million degrees F. and release as much energy as a billion megatons of TNT. They occur near sunspots, usually at the dividing line between areas of oppositely directed magnetic fields. Hot matter called plasma interacts with the magnetic field sending a burst of plasma up and away from the Sun in the form of a flare. Solar flares emit x-rays and magnetic fields which bombard the Earth as geomagnetic storms. If sunspots are active, more solar flares will result creating an increase in geomagnetic storm activity for the Earth. Therefore during sunspot maximums, the Earth will see an increase in the Northern and Southern Lights and a disruption in power grids and radio transmissions. The storms can even change polarity in satellites which can damage sophisticated electronics.
But the jury is still out on how much sunspots can (or do) affect the Earth's climate. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. From the mid 1600s to early 1700s, a period of very low sunspot activity (known as the Maunder Minimum) coincided with a number of long winters and severe cold temperatures in Western Europe, called the Little Ice Age. It is not known whether the two phenomena are linked or if it was just coincidence. The reason it is hard to relate maximum and minimum solar activity (sunspots) to the Earth's climate, is due to the complexity of the Earth's climate itself. For example, how does one sort out whether a long-term weather change was caused by sunspots, or maybe a coinciding El Nino or La Nina? Increased volcanic eruptions can also affect the Earth's climate by cooling the planet. And what about the burning of fossil fuels and clear cutting rain forests? One thing is more certain, sunspot cycles have been correlated in the width of tree ring growth. More study will be conducted in the future on relating sunspot activity and our Earth's climate.
The point is boils down to part of what SpurNation linked. When the sun is calmer, it is cooler. Less sunspots. Although sunspots are actually cool spots in the sun's surface, the sun gets slightly hotter as we have more sunspots. The average surface temperature may only change by a few degrees, but the output in radiant heat is changed even more.
We have thousands of years of paleoclimatology records that link sunspots to temperature. The sun goes through two primary cycles that we have witnessed in history. An 11 year and 19 year. The 19 year cycle amplifies and re s the sunspot activity. Not only are we in a calculated low area for the next 50 years of sunspot activity, but so far the sunspot data confirms it. I think the 3 or 4 current sunspots are the most we have had during the current sunspot cycle that started a few years ago. We might be peaking!
If this current sunspot cycle stays weak, and if the next one is weak, you can bet the farm that global temperatures will be cooler also.
Wiki: "Solar Variations; Solar radiation at 5250 C:
Now pay close attention to the next two graphs from SpectralCalc:
There is no visible change in the two graphs, but the second one is almost 0.1% hotter than the first. The first one emits (at emissivity = 1) 52,768,000 watts per square meter, the second emits 52,959,300. The second one emits 0.36% more energy. This is an extreme example because that 0.1% increase in solar surface heat increased the radiation the earth receives by 0.36%. 0.36% added to 288 K (14 C) global average is a full degree of global temperature change. Now because greenhouse gasses don't trap 100% of the re-radiated blackbody energy, the increase is closer to about 0.8 degrees of increase.
Something to note. The cooler area of the sunspots is smaller than the yellow colored hotter area. of the current sunspot picture.
Edit:
Note also for comparison that the E = 1 for the spectralcalc graphs mean they were calculated at 100% emissivity. Comparing the wiki graph with the blackbody charts, it appears the emissivity of the sun is about 85%. It is a strait linear tool, makes no percentage changes between two samples. Here is the 5250 C calculated at 85%:
Note the numbers of the vertical axis are now in agreement. (yes different scales - nanometers vs. sr/micro-meter.)
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-23-2009 at 09:26 AM.
This is why many people believe the quality of the Stradivarius Violin has not been replicated. It used wood grown during the Maunder Minimum.
If you take the sunspot graphs, give them a lag time and a running average, and overlay them over a temperature graph, the results are startling. Here is a nice chart from SIDC (Solar Influence Data Analysis Center):
Please note there are only a few times we had periods of ZERO sunspots. Also look at how low the sunspots around 1900 are. Just happens to be a starting point Global Warming Alarmists like to use.
A few other nice graphics from SIDC:
My sig will change with each update, but this is the activity the thread is about:
These are real cool if you have high speed:
SOHO satellite movie clip of Solar Flares 32 megabytes
Not sure what this SOHO movie is. Magnetic field? 16 megabytes
Not sure what this SOHO movie is. Electrical disturbances? 14 megabytes
SOHO Sunspot movie 1.2 megabyte MPEG
The sun sure is quiet compared to the recent past.
Seeing Double: Astronomers Amazed at Two Huge Sunspots, 23 October 2003
Earth put on solar storm alert, 24 October, 2003
Cloud of solar gas strikes our planet Night skies may light up with auroras, October 24, 2003
Yep, the era of Global Warming ended with some spectacular fireworks of our sun.
Here is a SOHO movie of Halloween 2003 Solar Storm:
Halloween storms EIT 195A (Oct. 17 - Nov. 5 2003) 35 megabyte MPEG
I'm glad there are people in this world that get geeked up about things like this.I sure as heck don't. But I've got my own stuff that I geek up over.
2012 Approaches
My sudden thought from your words related to this thread is that you think the sun is in a calm before the "big bang."2012 Approaches
It would be interesting to know how (if any) these occurances interact with (not only the physicheological events of the past) but historical social events related to similar occurances during the same time.
There has been strong evidence (though I don't have that info within my immediate reach) that socialogical and mental paterns can be effected by prolonged and/or sudden change in atmospheric conditions.
Good thing we weren't in the path of the CME (coronal mass ejection) of the sun when a comet hit it:
Two comets plunging into the solar corona
(June 2, 1998), 1.2 megabyte MPEG
Look at what the gravity effect of a large enough comet can do to the sun:
Exclusive views of Comet 96P/Machholz swinging past the Sun
Focus on the 1/8/02 19:42 mark:
I was watching a History Channel show on The Death of the Sun. It was mind blowing.
They said just before the Sun eventually implodes, it will condense to such an extent that if you were to fill a shot glass with the dense material of the sun during this process, it would weigh as much as a ginormous mountain.
I love getting Mind Blown by the Universe.
Eh. if you're referring to the Mayan date and the theory that it is due to an astronomical occurrence, that is still debatable. Most of those have been shot down. Mayan calendar does not end in 2012 at all, that it is like the odometer on your car, as each section of the odometer reaches 9 and then clicks over to 0, the next number to it starts a new cycle, so that when all the numbers again reach 0 all the way across the odometer - the last number will change from 1 to 2 and the new cycle starts all over again.2012 Approaches
This cycle occurrence has been likened to an alignment of the milky way as propagated by many authors, but that has already occurred. Although if meant to correlate to this, the Mayan estimate is very accurate.
On a side note, WC posting on solar radiation is kind of bothersome to me. My current position is in galactic and solar radiation. There are a lot more of things to consider than just sun spots in reference to our environment here on Earth. Things are not that simple and climate change isn't either. We simply don't know.
Edit; I hate to leave it at that.
The sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today. Higher levels of greenhouse gases were present this long ago.
We don't know. Once again.
Last edited by nuclearfm; 09-23-2009 at 04:00 PM.
Well, would you agree that greenhouse gasses are a feedback system of the solar heating of the earth?
Would you agree that more than 99.9% of the Earths heat comes from the sun?
Would you agree that the solar radiation has been fluctuation by 0.1% with the 11 year sunspot cycle?
I agree, there are far more considerations than sunspots alone. They do not have anything to do with other historical cycles of radiation changes from the sun we have observed. They do have a direct 0.1% change by themselves though.
Let me get your take on this. Since blackbody radiation is a fourth power function of temperature, how would you describe effect a 0.05% increase of solar radiation would have to the average temperature, with all other factors remaining the same? At face value, the 1.0005^4 is a 0.2% increase in radiation that the earth receives, and blackbody physics would make that heat revert back to a 0.05% increase instead of 0.2% because the earth would emit more heat out. However, the uncovered ocean makes up 65.6% of the earths area. With an average albedo of 0.07, it absorbs 93% of that heat. Since most of that is deep, standard re-radiation of blackbody physics does not apply.
Now I make the following using data as follows:
Ice covering 5.92% of the earth, albedo 0.85 southern pole 0.45 northern pole due to soot from Asia
Bare ocean covering 65.61% of the earth, average albedo 0.07
Land covering 28.47% of the land, average 0.30 albedo
Of Antarctica, 280,000 km is counted as land rather than snow.
I may revise these numbers as Greenland and other major snow covered areas were not included
OK then.
I didn't get any farther in this. Have other things to do, but considering most of the heat is retained by the greenhouse effect, I would say most of the 0.2% remains to heat the earth.
Also, how would you figure the soot has an effect on the northern ice melting?
Nuclear, can I get an answer?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
