[TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still

[Russell McMahon]

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.



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

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
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Nate Duehr]

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
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Minto Witteveen]

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:
http://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

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> 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


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Nate Duehr]

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
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Minto Witteveen]

> 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..

> 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.

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.

> 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.
> 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 :-).

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



Minto Witteveen.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Diego Sierra-2]

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.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>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
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Nate Duehr]

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

<http://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-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
Chris Smolinski
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:24 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [TECH]:: The sun has gone out - still

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.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

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.


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

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
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Diego Sierra-2]

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Russell McMahon <apptech@...> 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.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> 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

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Marechiare]

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

AF 447 ?
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[John Gardner-3]

Departures from the perceived norm are interesting, however
shallow the database. Perhaps we'll live to understand it :)
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Alan B. Pearce-2]

Looks like the sun may be awakening ...

http://tinyurl.com/nqpox8

Sunspots Ahoy ... my colleagues will be pleased.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon-4]

>> 2009/7/4 Alan B. Pearce Alan.B.Pearce@...
>> 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.
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Alan B. Pearce-2]

>>> 2009/7/4 Alan B. Pearce Alan.B.Pearce@...
>>> 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 ...

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon-4]

>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 ...
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist