| Thursday,
April 2, 2009 Quiet Sun
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/
y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
April 1, 2009: The sunspot cycle is behaving a
little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes
even lower.
2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots
observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank
suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days:
plot <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/
images/deepsolarminimum/centuryplot_gif2.gif> . Prompted by these
numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in
2008.
Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped
even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90
days (87%).
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion:
"We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean
Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center.
"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost
a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space
Flight Center.
see caption <http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov
/images/ssn_predict_l.gif>
Above: The sunspot cycle from 1995 to the
present. The jagged curve traces actual sunspot counts. Smooth curves are
fits to the data and one forecaster's predictions of future activity.
Credit: David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC. [more <http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml>
]
Quiet suns come along every 11 years or so.
It's a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer
Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. Sunspots are planet-sized islands of
magnetism on the surface of the sun; they are sources of solar flares,
coronal mass ejections and intense UV radiation. Plotting sunspot counts,
Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of
relative calm—a clockwork pattern that has held true for more than 200
years: plot <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/
images/deepsolarminimum/zurich.gif> .
The current solar minimum is part of that
pattern. In fact, it's right on time. "We're due for a bit of quiet—and here
it is," says Pesnell.
Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery <http://science.nasa.gov/news/subscribe.htm>
But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following
records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure:
Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind
pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began
in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the
inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are
permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts.
Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful
measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has
dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV
wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to
reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable
side-effects: Earth's upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is
therefore less "puffed up." Satellites in low Earth orbit experience less
atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. That's the good
news. Unfortunately, space junk also remains longer in Earth orbit,
increasing hazards to spacecraft and satellites.
see caption <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/
images/deepsolarminimum/irradiance.jpg>
Above: Space-age measurements of the total
solar irradiance (brightness summed across all wavelengths). This plot,
which comes from researcher C. Fröhlich, was shown by Dean Pesnell at the
Fall 2008 AGU meeting during a lecture entitled "What is Solar Minimum and
Why Should We Care?"
A 55-year low in solar radio emissions: After
World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness at
radio wavelengths. Records of 10.7 cm flux extend back all the way to the
early 1950s. Radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest "radio sun"
since 1955: plot <http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/
images/deepsolarminimum/radioflux.jpg> . Some researchers believe
that the lessening of radio emissions is an indication of weakness in the
sun's global magnetic field. No one is certain, however, because the source
of these long-monitored radio emissions is not fully understood.
All these lows have sparked a debate about
whether the ongoing minimum is "weird", "extreme" or just an overdue "market
correction" following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.
"Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar
activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most
intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're
just not used to this kind of deep calm."
Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years
ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than
the one we're experiencing now. To match those minima in terms of depth and
longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.
see caption <http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/
226837main_SDOconcept2_HI.jpg&im
grefurl=http://www.nasa.gov/mission
_pages/sdo/multimedia/SDOimg_conc
ept2.html&usg=__DSb6L-W_Bv8_sThN_
0g017826jM=&h=720&w=1280&sz=437&
hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=zL4PwEX1OZy-FM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=150&prev=/images?
q=solar%2Bdynamics%2Bobservatory&hl=
en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&sa=N&um=1>
In a way, the calm is exciting, says Pesnell.
"For the first time in history, we're getting to see what a deep solar
minimum is really like." A fleet of spacecraft including the Solar and
Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin STEREO probes, the five THEMIS
probes, ACE, Wind, TRACE, AIM, TIMED, Geotail and others are studying the
sun and its effects on Earth 24/7 using technology that didn't exist 100
years ago. Their measurements of solar wind, cosmic rays, irradiance and
magnetic fields show that solar minimum is much more interesting and
profound than anyone expected.
Above: An artist's concept of NASA's Solar
Dynamics Observatory. Bristling with advanced sensors, "SDO" is slated to
launch later this year--perfect timing to study the ongoing solar minimum.
[more <http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/>
]
Modern technology cannot, however, predict what
comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree,
sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next
solar maximum will be. Pesnell has surveyed the scientific literature and
prepared a "piano plot
<http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/
images/deepsolarminimum/pianoplot.jpg> " showing the range of
predictions. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully
understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.
Pesnell believes sunspot counts will pick up
again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar
maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.
But like other forecasters, he knows he could
be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.
There is a lot of solid data referenced in the
above; interpretations vary. Note that competing models by dozens of top
solar physicists disagree. Apply that analogy to climate models.
There was a time when everyone thought that the
Maunder Minimum (1645 - 1715) was in some way causative of the global
cooling of that time (of course the Little Ice Age started much before that
and didn't end until the 19th Century). What our current deficit of sun
spots means is in doubt. I would wager, though, that it has a larger
causative effect on Earth climate than CO2 levels, and the sooner we do
understand those effects the more likely we will be to understand what we
ought to be doing about climate change.
We do know that after WW II we were first concerned
about a coming global cooling, then everyone began worrying about global
warming, and now that things aren't warming so much we worry about climate
change.
You can't predict the future. You may be able to
invent it; but the better you understand where things are going, the more
likely you are to prepare for the future you will get.
==========
The Terminators are on their way,
Jerry
The Terminator movies are looking less far-fetched all
the time:
http://www.military.com/news/article/
March-2009/robot-killers-may-gain-more-
autonomy.html?wh=news
Ed
==============
A proposal to solve the hacker problem and save some
money
Dr. Pournelle,
You can decide if this is April Fools or not, but in
light of the conficker threat today...
Everyone knows that the average hacker who creates one
of these viruses/worms/Trojans is a young adult unmarried male with too much
time on his hands. The real property and financial damage caused by the acts
of these individuals is grossly disproportionate to the effort required to
create the virus. One skilled hacker working for one year can create a virus
that consumes the time/effort/money of every single IT department in the
world and/or destroy/steal data that took decades to create. That is a clear
asymmetric threat if I ever heard of one, and it demands a non-traditional
response.
My proposal – The Hacker relocation and lifestyle
adjustment program.
1. The hacker must self-identify to qualify.
2. The hacker must be willing to relocate to Nevada
(for reasons apparent in item 4).
3. The hacker must submit to a digital tracking scheme
created by the government, including monitoring software on computers and
limited access to other programmable digital devices with access to the
internet or other data services such as phone networks.
4. The hacker will be provided with a home, free
unlimited cable TV, and an unlimited-use pass at a nearby legal brothel.
5. The hacker will be provided a free account with a
reputable dating or matchmaking service.
6. The hacker will be provided an unlimited supply of
a mild narcotic drug such as pot.
The combined cost for these measures (even without
bulk discount rates at the brothels) should be far cheaper than the cost to
counter even a single successful malware effort per hacker, and it would
save an enormous amount of effort by many many agencies around the world.
Don’t use my name please…
Uh --
==========
real costs of cap and trade
Jerry:
Realism is beginning to show its ugly face:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
news/2009/mar/18/obama
-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/
Carbon trap and trade: saving the environment -- or
punishing the Red states with ruinous energy taxes (note that they would
only be 'refunded" to people who "can't pay"). Don't forget - the two firms
who are funding Al Gore are the ones who are ready to enter the carbon
trading business and will rake a substantial percentage off of the top. Say
10%, and Al Gore gets perhaps 1% of that, personally (maybe more). That
would be $2 billion. No wonder he's all about global warming.
Or should we wait until people are freezing to death
in the dark in Minnesota and Iowa and Montana and the Dakotas.
J
I am no longer familiar with the Washington Times,
but I think there is no controversy about the enormous costs of cap and
trade.
==
MONEY FOR NOTHING: FARMER GETS $3,000 FOR NOT
FARMING
Bloomberg, 26 March 2009
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=washingtonstory&sid=aFYk4zIrQRms>
By Lorraine Woellert and Alan Bjerga
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Rex Woollen grows corn and
soybeans. In 2007, the Wilcox, Nebraska, farmer started cultivating a new
commodity: carbon.
By not tilling his 800 acres, Woollen by some
estimates keeps 470 tons of carbon per year in the ground and out of the
atmosphere. Because of that, Woollen gets carbon credits he can sell on
the Chicago Climate Exchange. At first, neighboring farmers were
skeptical.
"They called me a tree-hugger," Woollen said. "Then
I showed them my first check."
Woollen gets about $3,000 a year from the climate
exchange's carbon-trading pilot program. While it isn't much, to Woollen
it hints at bigger potential profit as Congress considers mandatory,
nationwide greenhouse-gas limits.
President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in
Congress back a "cap-and-trade" system to ease global warming by making
companies obtain government-issued pollution permits. As allowable
emissions drop over time, companies would have to reduce pollution or buy
extra allowances. Businesses adopting clean-energy methods like wind or
solar power could sell permits for a profit.<snip>
==========
Hello Europe...
Hi Jerry,
I wrote some weeks back about how the EU government
has destroyed so much that was good about the food and wine of local
european regions, well - it is happening here now. ---
Change We Can Believe In: How About the End of Farmers
Markets? Say Hello to H.R. 875: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009
What this will do is force anyone who produces food of
any kind, and then transports it to a different location for sale, to
register with a new federal agency called the “Food Safety Administration.”
Even growers who sell just fruit and/or vegetables at farmers markets would
not only have to register, but they would be subject inspections by federal
agents of their property and all records related to food production. The
frequency of these inspections will be determined by the whim of the Food
Safety Administration. Mandatory “safety” records would have to be kept.
Anyone who fails to register and comply with all of this nonsense could be
facing a fine of up to $1,000,000 per violation. Interesting. A co-sponsor's
<http://cryptogon.com/?p=7362>
husband <http://www.fcplfoundation.org/programs
wesupport/capitalbookfestival/
authors/greenberg.htm> has Monsanto as a client. UPDATE:
Govtrack.us <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/
bill.xpd?bill=h111-875> . And here's the Library of Congress'
Thomas <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin
/query/z?c111:h875:> . UPDATE II: The bill would appear to even
cover some fishing boats and potentially your downtown hot dog street
vendors. More here <http://shepardpolitics.blogspot.com/
2009/03/hr-875-
would-essentially-outlaw-family.html> . UPDATE III: Its
implications point to the weeding out of all independent, family farms as
well as all organic farming operations because of peremptory federal
regulations determined in favor of corporate factory farms. More here <http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/
archives/2009/03/more_on_congres.shtml> . This is the same group
(Congress) that killed the used goods market for children because it
overreacted to the potential of lead poisoning in children's clothing,
books, toys, etc.
---
Lawrence
I gather that this has been reconsidered for now?
But the pressure to create agricultural industries that are too big to fail
continues... After all, people should not have the freedom to buy vegetables
they don't have to wash before they eat them. What about those who came from
the public schools and inadequately learned about the germ theory of
disease? Mustn't they have bureaucratic protection?
=========
Too Big to Fail...
Dr Pournelle,
Re. your idea that companies “too big to fail” are too
big to be allowed to exist, the Washington Post report
http://preview.tinyurl.com/cocqpj :
> Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner today told
Congress the > administration will seek unprecedented power to seize
non-bank > financial companies whose collapse could jeopardize the economy.
> I somehow don’t think that’s what you had in mind…
—Joel Salomon
===========
Pourable batteries could store green power
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29900981/
via msnbc.com: Technology & Science <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032118/>
on 3/26/09
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29900981/>
Scientists at MIT are developing large, eco-friendly stationary batteries
made entirely from liquid metal that would store large amounts of power from
wind farms or solar cells or serve as backup power sources for hospit
Better power storage is good for everything. Cheap
power storage makes distributed power collection a great deal more efficient
because you don't have transmission losses. How long it takes to get this
into economic production is another matter.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Thursday |
