Starship Asterisk*

by **Mr. Anderson** » Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:52 pm

interesting information...thx

by **astrolabe** » Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:29 am

Since the Earth is at perigee During the Southern Hemisphere's summer the effect could be more relavent with respect to those climes. Also, more unstable air masses occur in the spring and fall with more gale+ storm activity in both hemispheres. One would think lunar influences would play a more significant roll especially perhaps coupled with sunspot activity.

by **Andy Wade** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:02 pm

auroradude wrote:Thanks Andy.
I'd like to invite you to come see the auroras from Alaska but I think it would be a lot easier for you to visit perhaps Norway. Easy hop to Copenhagen, Oslo and then maybe Tromso. Perhaps you have a direct hop over to Iceland. You will get them in the UK but it usually takes a pretty good solar flare and these are few and far between during the current solar minimum. There are signs that the new cycle is starting so conditions will improve over the next couple years or so.
I was lucky to see and photograph the auroras since I was young and was hooked right away. They are addicting.
When I was about 12 years old - 35 years ago, an Earth science teacher had talked of the solar cycles and how the climate was related citing the cycle of drought/fire seasons that paralelled the solar cycle. It was fascinating then and still is now.

Dennis Anderson

Thanks for that, I look forward to the day I get to see something.
One day - maybe Iceland, with a bit of luck we'd get to see some live volcanos too...
The picture "Big Country, Big Camera" reminds me of some words from a song:
"You know you're in the largest state in the Union when you're anchored down in Anchorage"

Liked the animations too...

They really give me a good impression of what I'm missing.

by **auroradude** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:25 pm

Thanks Andy.
I'd like to invite you to come see the auroras from Alaska but I think it would be a lot easier for you to visit perhaps Norway. Easy hop to Copenhagen, Oslo and then maybe Tromso. Perhaps you have a direct hop over to Iceland. You will get them in the UK but it usually takes a pretty good solar flare and these are few and far between during the current solar minimum. There are signs that the new cycle is starting so conditions will improve over the next couple years or so.
I was lucky to see and photograph the auroras since I was young and was hooked right away. They are addicting.
When I was about 12 years old - 35 years ago, an Earth science teacher had talked of the solar cycles and how the climate was related citing the cycle of drought/fire seasons that paralelled the solar cycle. It was fascinating then and still is now.

Dennis Anderson

by **Andy Wade** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:51 am

auroradude wrote:Thanks for that.
I can relate to the frustration of not being able do the science at the very time that it would be so much desired. It would be inconceivable that I would have to switch off my cameras during such an event.

http://www.spacew.com/gallery/image001984.html

Thanks very much for that link to your pictures Dennis. They are truly excellent and I really enjoyed looking through them. I have never witnessed an aurora show and it is one of my deepest desires.
'Calm below the storm' is beautiful.

Cheers!

by **neufer** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:06 am

bystander wrote:Neufer, I hope you didn't really expect CC to explain himself. I would've thought by now you would realize that CC and FI don't explain, they "just observe the obvious". Obvious to them, anyway. Think about it. Oh, and BTW, welcome aboard.

Nice to be aboard, thanks, bystander.

by **craterchains** » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:25 am

auroradude
Antarctic ice core samples.

We know that the antarctic was inhabited in the early 1200s. Harbors, trees, land and animals. A map that shows it. Also from the 400 - 600 CE another map showing only snow and ice on the highest mountains there. That calls into question using any ice to date such events. Counter information that calls to question some other dating methods too.

Well Art,
The volcanos of our life time have done more damage, if one wants to call it that, than all of so called mans polluting efforts. I hear tell that there are some very nasty gasses from underground that pollute our air also. What amazes me are the beautiful new rainbow effects that have been appearing in our atmosphere in the last couple of decades. Fascinating.

Norval

by **bystander** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:02 pm

auroradude wrote:Here is an interesting graph that may not shed much light on the last thousand years, or the fact that greenhouse gasses are at their highest levels in over 650,000 years, just for lack of detail but it does take the record back 400,000 years or so based on Antarctic ice core samples. It certainly highlights some natural long-term climatic fluctuations of the past.

It surely will make one wonder just how much of this "global warming" is due to natural climatic changes.

Nuefer, I hope you didn't really expect CC to explain himself. I would've thought by now you would realize that CC and FI don't explain, they "just observe the obvious". Obvious to them, anyway. Think about it.

Oh, and BTW, welcome aboard.

by **auroradude** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:05 pm

Here is an interesting graph that may not shed much light on the last thousand years, or the fact that greenhouse gasses are at their highest levels in over 650,000 years, just for lack of detail but it does take the record back 400,000 years or so based on Antarctic ice core samples. It certainly highlights some natural long-term climatic fluctuations of the past.

http://www.mongabay.com/images/external ... limate.jpg

by **neufer** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:48 am

craterchains wrote:
neufer wrote:There would have been a constant cooling fire haze from all this that suppressed temperatures before the CO2 had time to build up and reverse this process.
I highly doubt that. For many reasons, think about it.

I have thought about it already. Could you be a little more specific?
[Note: I am not claiming that the majority of CO2 came from the permanant loss of certain forests but rather from the continual burning of peat bogs, coal, oil and other fossil fuels.]

by **craterchains** » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:44 am

neufer

There would have been a constant cooling fire haze from all this that suppressed temperatures before the CO2 had time to build up and reverse this process.

I highly doubt that. For many reasons, think about it.

by **neufer** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:57 pm

lankytom wrote:I would like to refer you to the subject of the "Maunder Minimum." That was a period from around 1645 - 1715 when sunspots were at a minimum or even absent and a mini ice age descended on Europe.

Whether or not the 300 year Little Ice Age (1550 to 1850) and the MUCH shorter 70 year Maunder sunspot minimum (1645 to 1715) are related (and/or have anything to do with the above) is debatable IMO. One can argue that our recovery from the Little Ice Age is almost solely due to (coal/gasoline burning) global warming (and, possibly, that our entry into the Little Ice Age was almost solely due to human agricultural burning).

In 1500 there were probably
50,000,000 native people in the Americas
burning down forests for agriculture.

In 1750 there were probably
500,000,000 people in Asia and
163,000,000 people in Europe
burning down forests for heat & cooking.

There would have been a constant cooling fire haze from all this that suppressed temperatures before the CO2 had time to build up and reverse this process.

by **lankytom** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:49 pm

I would like to refer you to the subject of the "Maunder Minimum." That was a period from around 1645 - 1715 when sunspots were at a minimum or even absent and a mini ice age descended on Europe. I'm not sure of the mechanism. I saw a discussion relating to more heavy particles in the solar wind when sunspots are numerous. The heavier particles interact with or block more cosmic rays, reducing cloud cover. With minimal sunspots the solar wind apparently interacts less with cosmic rays, cloud cover increases, and cooler, colder weather results. I note that the current solar cycle has started out with greatly reduced sunspots, while Fairbanks Alaska has just experienced a cold snap period they haven't had in 10 years or so and a longer cold snap for many more years. Some scientists think we may be about to experience some global COOLING rather than global warming. We may have a great opportunity to track weather again with sunspots.

by **neufer** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:46 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
neufer wrote:http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/image ... ectrum.htm
Returning to this graph simply because I find it very fascinating, I find a few things particularly interesting about it. We already know that atmosphere is nearly transparent to visible light, which is probably part of the reason we evolved to see in this wavelength range. At the same time, it's also the peak wavelength of solar output, a futher convenience for us.

On the other hand, one would assume (for both the same reasons) that earth plants would have evolved to make use of all that strong yellow/green light that is available at the surface of the earth; and yet leaves & grass are green because that is precisely the frequency that the plants reject...go figure

by **iamlucky13** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:22 pm

neufer wrote:http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/image ... ectrum.htm

Returning to this graph simply because I find it very fascinating, I find a few things particularly interesting about it. We already know that atmosphere is nearly transparent to visible light, which is probably part of the reason we evolved to see in this wavelength range. At the same time, it's also the peak wavelength of solar output, a futher convenience for us. What I was surprised to see, is that it also is the most stable component of the solar output, with almost the entire range, as neufer noted, maintaining a constant output throughout the solar cycle.

I also was mildly surprised how closely most of the output curve mimicks the black body curve. It's always satisfying to see theoretical results upheld in the real data.

by **auroradude** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:10 pm

Thanks for that.
I can relate to the frustration of not being able do the science at the very time that it would be so much desired. It would be inconceivable that I would have to switch off my cameras during such an event.

http://www.spacew.com/gallery/image001984.html

by **neufer** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:24 am

auroradude wrote:Thank you Art for the expertise.
I have a question about one event in particular and a generalization of such events: Back in late October of 2003 we experienced the impact of CME's related to two huge solar flares. I had read that these actually stripped off some of the Earth's outer atmosphere and that it took months to fully recover. Was there a noticeable or measurable difference in the amount of penetration of short wavelength radiation or was it all-in-all insignificant?

My "expertise" , so to speak, stops at the warm (ozone heated) Stratopause at 45 km. You are talking about effects in the thermosphere, ionosphere, and exosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Atmo ... sphere.svg

Disruptions in radio transmission and pretty aurora to be sure:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031104.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031030.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031029.html

I was talking to a frustrated scientist at an AGU meeting who was studying the affects of flares on the upper atmosphere with satellites. The problem was that his attempts to monitor these events was thwarted because the folks in charge of the satellites had to turn them off to protect them from the flare.

by **neufer** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:03 am

auroradude wrote:Yes, that certainly answers the question of short wavelength radiation at the surface but I also wonder if upper regions are affected such as the mesosphere and possibly polar mesospheric clouds (noctiluscent clouds) or if there would be increased heating of the upper stratosphere by UV radiation and any possible effects on the stratosperic ozone.

I'm sure that all of the above are affected by the solar sunspot cycle but it is ONLY the stratosphere of the winter hemisphere that is in a unstable dynamic state such that it permits for the amplification of the very weak solar signal.

by **neufer** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:19 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
neufer wrote:I just retired from NOAA/NESDIS last year after 36 years.
Congratulations on your retirement.

Thanks, iamlucky13.

by **auroradude** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:35 pm

Yes, that certainly answers the question of short wavelength radiation at the surface but I also wonder if upper regins are affected such as the mesosphere and possibly polar mesospheric clouds (noctiluscent clouds) or if there would be increased heating of the upper stratosphere by UV radiation and any possible effects on the stratosperic ozone.

by **iamlucky13** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:56 pm

neufer wrote:http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/image ... ectrum.htm

<<At wavelengths shorter than about 300 nm, there is a relatively large variation in the Sun's extreme UV and x-ray output (greater than 1%), but the Earth's atmosphere is nearly opaque at those wavelengths. For Earth-dwelling beach-goers there is no significant difference between Solar Max and solar minimum.>>

Aha! That's exactly what I was asking. That's a really interesting and information-dense graph (although it took me a while to figure out what it was really showing).

neufer wrote:I just retired from NOAA/NESDIS last year after 36 years.

Congratulations on your retirement.

by **auroradude** » Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:38 pm

Thank you Art for the expertise.
I have a question about one event in particular and a generalization of such events: Back in late October of 2003 we experienced the impact of CME's related to two huge solar flares. I had read that these actually stripped off some of the Earth's outer atmosphere and that it took months to fully recover. Was there a noticable or measurable difference in the amount of penetration of short wavelenght radiation or was it all-in-all insignificant?

by **auroradude** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:57 pm

The info on today's image says that it was taken on January 31st but there is no mention of orientation. On the 31st 10982 was 40 degrees east that would make the orientation of east at the top of this image if it is indeed 10982.

by **neufer** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:37 pm

auroradude wrote:I have not found anything on weather this spot, 10982 actually belongs to the new cycle 24. It is only at a latitude of 9 degrees south and may belong to the old cycle 23. Sunspots of a new cycle appear at high latitudes and migrate towards the equater as the cycle progresses.
Sunspot 10981 was confirmed as the first sunspot of cycle 24 back in January 2008 around the 4th. It had reversed magnetic fields and was at latitude 30 degrees north. Both indicators that it belonged to the new cycle.

Surely http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080206.html
is, in fact, Sunspot 10981 at 27 degrees North:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 ... nspot.html

by **auroradude** » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:44 pm

The area is 10 one-millionths of the surface area of the visible sun - whatever that translates into. I believe it is rather tiny for a sunspot.

I have not found anything on weather this spot, 10982 actually belongs to the new cycle 24. It is only at a latitude of 9 degrees south and may belong to the old cycle 23. Sunspots of a new cycle appear at high latitudes and migrate towards the equater as the cycle progresses.
Sunspot 10981 was confirmed as the first sunspot of cycle 24 back in January 2008 around the 4th. It had reversed magnetic fields and was at latitude 30 degrees north. Both indicators that it belonged to the new cycle.
There is no definate dividing line between cycles and they will overlap for several months.

Starship Asterisk*

Sunspots, size? weather? (APOD 06 Feb 2008)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Sunspots, size? weather? (APOD 06 Feb 2008)

Re: Sunspots, size? weather?

Sunspots, size? weather?