BUSY SUN (or...not so much)

spaceweather.com ^ | 5/25/2009 | No attribution

[PreciousLiberty]

The sun is still in the pits of a deep solar minimum. Lately, however, attentive observers of solar activity have noticed a certain "busy-ness" on the solar disk.

[PreciousLiberty]

There's no way to link directly to the article, it's the second from the top.

The Sun may be rumbling to life, or not. We'll see...not a sunspot in sight for the moment. There was a bit of sunspot activity earlier this month, but it's not clear if it would have been noticed in the earlier part of the Maunder Minimum, when the telescopes weren't yet too good. Say, 1655 or so. Also, during the more extreme minimum events, there were sporadic bursts of activity, after which the Sun would go back to long periods of minimum conditions.

[hoosier hick]

Well, since we’re now in the business of counting half-sunspots, any pre-cursor activity can be considered a de-facto sunspot, therefore the minimum is over....

hh

[2Jedismom]

I’ll swan.

[Crazieman]

Yeah they counted a group of sunspots that didn’t even break the surface. It was pathetic. The only thing you could make out were slight magnetic distortions on the surface. There were NO sunspots.

When they were on the verge of breaking a long sunspotless streak, suddenly news came out they had to revise the streak because a microspot was detected several weeks before while reexamining data and photos.

They’re desperate to show activity.

[xcamel]

Or not.

[PreciousLiberty]

“Yeah they counted a group of sunspots that didn’t even break the surface. It was pathetic. The only thing you could make out were slight magnetic distortions on the surface. There were NO sunspots.”

They were marginal at best. The first “groups” looked like dark spots in faculae rather than true sunspots. I don’t believe they showed up in “white light” projections either, which were used by everyone until the 20th Century, IIRC. Here are good links to such imagery from Australia:

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/2/7
http://www.ips.gov.au/Images/Solar/Culgoora%20Observatory/White%20Light%20Image/culgoora_raw_wl.jpg

There’s an “International Sunspot Number” run out of Belgium. That site only updates after the month is over, I’ll be interested to see if they count any of this activity. They’re more conservative than NASA as to what “counts”.

http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/

[Thermalseeker]

They’re desperate to show activity.

I wonder if this desperation is to justify their funding, or if they know this spells the end to the "globull warming" movement because it will usher in dramatic, planet wide cooling, or ???

[gusopol3]

Now why would the sunspot counters be in the tank for the global warmers? Just asking.

[gusopol3]

oh I see, it’s NASA.

[gorush]

Eminations from the penumbra...don’t’cha know?

[Crazieman]

The sunspot counters are in the same tank as global warming. Spaceweather has had numerous articles about the solar minimum that always toss in “little to no effect on global warming”

[gusopol3]

thanks.

[PreciousLiberty]

"I wonder if this desperation is to justify their funding, or if they know this spells the end to the "globull warming" movement because it will usher has ushered in dramatic, planet wide cooling, or ???"

There, fixed that. ;-)

See icecap.us for more information. The short version is that sea levels haven't risen detectably in three years, the ARGO buoys don't find any ocean heating (80% of the heat should be in the oceans), and global sea ice is above normal - the arctic is slightly low, but the antarctic is well above normal.

As to the global warming claims from NASA, the "deep solar minimum" article linked from the first sentence of this current article contains this line:

"The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming,"

To which I'll say three things:

1) This is a classic case of a "non-climatologist" making climatological pronouncements, which is often derided from the other direction.
2) The mechanism for cooling during the other minima is not understood, it's not thought that the radiance changes referred to here were sufficient. So, it is ignorant to claim that we know whether or not the changes are sufficient to "reverse" global warming. And of course, none of the heating could be random, natural variation right?
3) The real world doesn't seem to be cooperating with their view of things. ;-)

[C210N]

Looking at the SOHO MDI, there is a definite "spot" that has persisted I believe for at least a week, and perhaps 2 or 3. Its in the upper left, if you take a peek.

Just because its probably a camera lens dust bunny, and just because its not revolving like you might expect as we spin around it, it should be no reason for the sunspot grant takers from claiming it, and using it for their agenda. Works so well in other areas...

[Thermalseeker]

See icecap.us for more information.

Yes, I'm aware. I certainly do not believe anthropogenic global warming is occurring, and, in fact, the earth has been in a cooling spell since the late 90's, However, I don't think we've seen "dramatic" global cooling quite yet, either. The sun spot issue certainly has my attention raised, though.

Words have meaning and we have to be careful how we describe what is happening so that we don't appear to be raving moonbats on the order of the Warmers. Dramatic cooling, IMHO, would be something like snow in June in Tennessee. Speaking as a pilot and a student of the weather for more than 30 years what we are currently experiencing isn't nearly far enough removed from "average" to remotely be considered "dramatic".....it's just "weather".....

[PreciousLiberty]

“Looking at the SOHO MDI, there is a definite “spot” that has persisted I believe for at least a week, and perhaps 2 or 3. Its in the upper left, if you take a peek.”

I’m 99% sure that’s a recently deceased sensor pixel. The giveaway is that it’s remaining in one spot, while every other feature moves left to right as the sun rotates. On the other hand, that is roughly the size of the recent “spots”. heh

[grey_whiskers]

I'll see you and raise you...

Μολσών
Λαβαττσ

Cheers!

[PreciousLiberty]

'Speaking as a pilot and a student of the weather for more than 30 years what we are currently experiencing isn't nearly far enough removed from "average" to remotely be considered "dramatic".....it's just "weather".....'

First of all, we're discussing 'climate' not 'weather', and there's a big difference. It's the same mistake the alarmists make when the freak out over the arctic sea ice. Yes, it's a big area. No, changes there don't necessarily mean that the *global* average temperature corresponds.

On the other hand, I'd argue that the weather has been quite dramatic this last winter, including a large number of all-time record low temperatures for a given date, and this spring we're seeing a rash of all-time record "low high" temperatures for a given date. We just had one here last week.

However, we were discussing climate, specifically global average temperature. Check this out:

The 1/2007 to 1/2008 temperature drop was the biggest one-year drop on record. Dramatic enough for me, and depending on how things go with the minimum it may just be the beginning.

Linked from "Sea Level Has Not Risen for Three Years - New Monthly SPPI CO2 Report".

[maryz]

Interesting chart — just out of curiosity, has the IPCC commented on or explained or explained away how far their projections have been diverging from the actual? Have they noticed? ;-)

[HighlyOpinionated]

I wish they had a 3-D photo instead of 2-D. It appears that there are a few places where the surface of the sun is beginning to be pulled toward the center.