PDA

View Full Version : The Sun is Undergoing a State Change



keehah
21st April 2010, 11:00 PM
Came across this article while looking for information on the sun's continued low Solar Geomagnetic Activity (see below). This first article is a very good read, better than most on the topic, about what the future may bring. I've quoted two sections.

The Sun is Undergoing a State Change
James A. Marusek 
 March/April
2010
 (http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/StateChange.pdf)


The sun has gone magnetically quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24. The Average Magnetic Planetary Index (Ap index) is a proxy measurement for the intensity of solar magnetic activity as it alters the geomagnetic field on Earth. It is commonly referred to a measuring stick for solar magnetic activity. For 11 months, from November 2008 to September 2009, the Ap index had been hovering near rock bottom with reading of "4 and 5". But in the last two months, October and November, the Ap monthly index broke through the glass floor and spawned the lowest value in the past 77 years with a reading of "3". And then in December, the AP Index even went quieter with a reading of "2".

Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with high-energy galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These are charged particles 
 (protons, ions) that originate from exploding stars (supernovas). Many of these particles are traveling near the speed of light. Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. Currently the sun's interplanetary magnetic field has fallen to around 4 nano-Tesla (nT) from a typical value of 6 to 8 nT. The solar wind pressure is down to a 50-year low. The heliospheric current sheet is flattening. In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen since satellite measurements began 50 years ago.

If we slip into a quiet solar "Grand Minima" state, we can expect GCR flux rates to increase 200% to 300% above current levels.

There are Two Paths Ahead; Each Marked with a 'Danger' Signpost

We are now at a crossroad. Two paths lie before us. Both are marked with a signpost that reads 'Danger'! Down one path lies the threat from massive solar storms. Down the other path lies several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.

If either of these threats materializes, many nations will be hit blind-sighted. Both are related to the current state of the sun. The sun has been in a 'Grand Maxima' for most of the past century. This has accounted for much of the natural warming the earth has experienced. But as evident in the high number of spotless days in this solar minimum, the sun is changing states. It might (1) level off and revert to the old solar cycles or (2) the sun might go even quieter magnetically slipping into a “Dalton Minimum" or a solar Grand Minima such as the 'Maunder Minimum'. It is still a little early to predict which way it will swing.

Solar Storm Threat

Most solar storms produce only minor disquieting effects on Earth. Typically one might expect short-term electrical power blackouts, short-lived communication outages, rerouting of aircraft, loss of a few satellites and a beautiful aurora borealis" in the night sky from a large solar storm. But as the intensity of a solar storm increases like a wild beast, the storm can begin to develop the capacity to create a major disaster on Earth. The difference in solar storm intensity is like the difference between being hit with a tropical rainstorm and being devastated by a Category 5 hurricane. The solar storm of 1-2 September 1859, which began with a solar flare so strong that it was subsequently named the Carrington Flare, was such a beast.

A solar storm can consist of three major components: a solar flare, a solar proton event and a coronal mass ejection. A coronal mass ejection can interact with Earth's magnetic field to produce a geomagnetic storm. Not all solar storms produce all three elements but the largest solar storms tend to.

Will the world face the threat from a massive solar storm in Solar Cycle 24? An increase in the number of cumulative spotless days during a solar minimum appears to correlate to a reduction in the number of sunspots over the entire solar cycle. The old solar cycles produced overall 38% fewer International Sunspot Numbers than the recent solar cycles. Since the old solar cycles produced fewer sunspots, one might draw the conclusion that we will be entering a period of reduced solar storms. But historical observations show this is not true. It is quite the opposite. The old solar cycles produced very intense solar storms. Massive solar storms in the old solar cycles occurred on 1-2 September 1859, 12 October 1859, 4 February 1872, 17-18 November 1882, 30 March 1894, 31 October 1903, 25 September 1909 and 13-16 May 1921. How can this be? This is because the old solar cycles produced massive sunspots. It was as if the magnetic field energy still existed and still had to be vented but during a shorter time interval, so the sunspots exploded in size and power.


Quiet Sun Threat

There are some scientists that believe the sun, rather than leveling off into a new state in Solar Cycle 24, will
continue to free fall throughout this solar cycle. Several scientists including David Hathaway (NASA), William Livingston & Matthew Penn (National Solar Observatory), Khabibullo Abdusamatov (Russian Academy of Science), Cornelis de Jager (The Netherlands) & S. Duhau (Argentina) and Theodor Landscheidt (Germany), have forecasted that the sun may enter a period similar to the Dalton Minimum or a more severe Grand Minima (such as the Maunder Minimum or Spörer Minimum), a decade from now in Solar Cycle 25.

A few scientists including David C. Archibald (Australia) and M. A. Clilverd (Britain) have warned this might even begin in Solar Cycle 24. We are at the transition into Solar Cycle 24 and this cycle has already shown itself to be unusually quiet.

The sun is a major force controlling natural climate change on Earth. Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high-speed charged particles (protons, ions) that originate from exploding stars. Many of these particles are moving close to the speed of light. Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Charged raindrops are ten to a hundred times more efficient in capturing aerosols than uncharged drops. Low clouds tend to be optically thick and are efficient at reflecting sunlight back into space. A large increase in Earth's cloud cover produces a global drop in temperature.

Galactic cosmic rays are a very effective amplifying mechanism for climate forcing because the energy needed to change cloudiness is small compared with the resulting changes in solar radiation received at the Earth's surface.

Earth's ocean cloud cover is strongly correlated with GCR flux modulated by solar cycle variations...
_______________
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ap-1844-dec2009.png
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/solar-update-ap-index-of-geomagnetic.html

An Ap index of “4″ was the lowest recorded monthly value since measurements began in January 1932. In October and November 2009, this index record was broken...

The Ap Index of Solar Geomagnetic Activity continues at historic lows in the low single digits, and can lag the month of solar cycle minimums by up to 1 year. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and sunspot activity appears to have bottomed in August 2009, but Ap Index bottoming could lag up to one year based on prior cycles.
Link to Original Article (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/suns-magnetic-index-reaches-unprecedent-low-only-zero-could-be-lower-in-a-month-when-sunspots-became-more-active/)

Horn
21st April 2010, 11:11 PM
Great post, keehah.

From what I've been following thus far a Dalton, or even Maunder minimum is upon us.

The implications are staggering as far as global food production goes, with the sheer size of the Earth's population. Countries will have to cooperate just to survive, China & India will run into major issues.

I am suspect that this has been known by TPTB for some time.

Neuro
22nd April 2010, 04:47 AM
Great information Keehah, applause for you! I guess we will know in 10-15 years if we entered a new minimum or in 50-100 years if we have even entered a new Ice Age (the current intermediate warm period has been exceptionally long).

singular_me
22nd April 2010, 12:13 PM
cant help myself but it makes me think of the Mayan forecast AGAIN... very rationally speaking here.

Horn
22nd April 2010, 09:29 PM
It's really hard to find some good factual info. for the Maunder Minimum on the net.

Most articles are biased one way or another from the global warming debate.

Still looking.

Gaillo
22nd April 2010, 09:33 PM
It's really hard to find some good factual info. for the Maunder Minimum on the net.

Most articles are biased one way or another from the global warming debate.

Still looking.



Look here, starting at post #2:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1023724/pg1

A good synopsis of the "NASA Sun Conspiracy" and its implications.

SeekYeFirst
22nd April 2010, 10:23 PM
Quote from the guy at boeing,
"Everyone at NASA has a family somewhere. They're not a bunch of govt bought robots - they have feelings. They fear what can happen. But they have to pay their bills like all of us. They have to keep money coming into the budget. Many WANT to keep money coming hoping that they can figure out what is fact - and THEN they would LIKE to open up about it." emphasis added.
OK, Obama just said he would divert money from NASA to "private" companies like Boeing. Do you think they might be doing a little fear-mongering to keep the money coming in and keep their families fed, much the same as the global-warming researchers got grants and made money with bogus claims?
Fun stuff to think about regardless. Maybe this the threat that will help bring about NWO?

Horn
22nd April 2010, 10:54 PM
It's really hard to find some good factual info. for the Maunder Minimum on the net.

Most articles are biased one way or another from the global warming debate.

Still looking.



Look here, starting at post #2:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1023724/pg1

A good synopsis of the "NASA Sun Conspiracy" and its implications.


This page has a rather complete set of effects of the little ice age.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

My reference to TPTB being aware was due to the Jupiter 180yr. cycle explained here.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/

As far as the ribbon goes, I can only offer this lyric... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Tne92jfxo

Horn
23rd April 2010, 01:53 PM
These guys appeared to be shunned away from the mainstream for some reason in the 60's - 70's

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html



The revolution of the planets about the Sun can cause the center of mass (barycenter) of the Solar System to move from a position within the body of the Sun to a point outside it. The motion of Jupiter, the heaviest planet causes the greatest shift. In the upper frame, when Jupiter and the other heavy planets (Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) are all on one side of the Sun, the barycenter (marked B) is located outside. In the lower frame, when Jupiter is on the other side, the barycenter will fall within the Sun. It is hypothesized that the resulting changes in orbital angular velocity of the Sun will cause variations in solar output, affecting climate on the Earth.

keehah
22nd January 2011, 09:59 AM
The Hindu, Jan.17, 2011: Cosmic rays contribute 40% to global warming: study (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article1107174.ece)

Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

‘Cosmic ray impact ignored'

Releasing Dr. Rao's findings as a discussion paper on Thursday, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh noted that “the impact of cosmic ray intensity on climate change has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream scientific consensus.” He added that the “unidimensional focus” on carbon emissions by most Western countries put additional pressure on countries like India in international climate negotiations.

The continuing increase in solar activity has caused a 9 per cent decrease in cosmic ray intensity over the last 150 years, which results in less cloud cover, which in turn results in less albedo radiation being reflected back to the space, causing an increase in the Earth's surface temperature.

While the impact of cosmic rays on climate change has been studied before, Dr. Rao's paper quantifies their contribution to global warming and concludes that “the future prediction of global warming presented by IPCC's fourth report requires a relook to take into the effect due to long term changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity.”

Policy implications

This could have serious policy implications. If human activity cannot influence such a significant cause of climate change as cosmic rays, it could change the kind of pressure put on countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Ramesh emphasised that Dr. Rao's findings would not reduce domestic action on climate change issues, but he admitted that it could influence the atmosphere of international negotiations.

“International climate negotiations are about climate politics. But increasingly, science is becoming the handmaiden of politics,” he said.

In November 2009, Mr. Ramesh had released a report by glaciologist V.K. Raina claiming that Himalayan glaciers are not all retreating at an alarming pace. It had been disputed by many Western scientists, while IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri dismissed it as “voodoo science.” However, Dr. Raina was later vindicated by the IPCC's own retraction of its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

“Since then, Western Ministers have reduced talk about the glaciers to me, they have stopped using it as frequently as a pressure point for India to come on board,” said Mr. Ramesh.

When Mr. Ramesh sent Dr. Rao's paper to Dr. Pachauri, he replied that the next IPCC report was paying special attention to the impact of cloud cover on global warming. The Minister expressed hope that Dr. Rao's findings would be seriously studied by climate researchers.

“There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded as a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists,” he said. “Climate science is incredibly more complex than [developed countries] negotiators make it out to be… Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.”

Disputing IPCC claims

According to the latest report by the IPCC, all human activity, including carbon dioxide emissions, contribute 1.6 watts/sq.m to global warming, while other factors such as solar irradiance contribute just 0.12 watts/sq.m.

However, Dr. Rao's paper calculates that the effect of cosmic rays contributes 1.1 watts/sq.m, taking the total contribution of non-human activity factors to 1.22 watts/sq.m.

This means that increased carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere are not as significant as the IPCC claims. Of the total observed global warming of 0.75 degrees Celsius, only 0.42 degrees would be caused by increased carbon dioxide. The rest would be caused by the long term decrease in primary cosmic ray intensity and its effect on low level cloud cover.

Horn
22nd January 2011, 02:58 PM
However, Dr. Rao's paper calculates that the effect of cosmic rays contributes 1.1 watts/sq.m, taking the total contribution of non-human activity factors to 1.22 watts/sq.m.

This conclusion has a base level of intuition that defies the needs for all the numbers.

I'm gonna go ahead an round it of for him at a balanced 50/50,,, 50 in, 50 out.... :)

Neuro
23rd January 2011, 01:50 AM
I just had a look at the updated planetary index, above, an indicator of the magnetic activity of the sun... SCARY! Build a greenhouse with bullet proof glass!

Horn
23rd January 2011, 09:14 AM
I just had a look at the updated planetary index, above, an indicator of the magnetic activity of the sun... SCARY! Build a greenhouse with bullet proof glass!


Some linkage, aqui.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/ap-at-1-well-that-is-not-good/

http://www.solarcycle24.com/planetk.htm

Horn
5th February 2011, 11:45 AM
Observed divided by synthetic.

http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=855&page=35