Comments on: Is a New Solar Cycle beginning? Er, no. Not yet.

By: John A

John A — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:20:45 +0000

I’m just an educated observer as well, and I observed that that SC24 spot lasted just as long as the reversed polarity spot did in 2006 - a few hours.

What does this mean? That SC24 continues to puzzle and nobody knows what will happen.

By: Dennis Hand

Dennis Hand — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:32:12 +0000

Read this posting about a magnetically reversed spot that appeared on Jan 4, 2008.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/06/1329233&from=rss

So, I’m just an educated observer, any of you experts care to comment? Do we have a new cycle yet?

By: John A

John A — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:19:46 +0000

Time will tell, but Hathaway in any event will come out the wiser for it since all scientists when faced with a failed prediction are then given more facts to better understanding.

That’s the fun of science. I’m not blaming Hathaway for sticking his neck out though.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:47:06 +0000

Anyway that was my black helicopter theory for the month.

I’m more of the opinion we are going to have a weak solar cycle, we already had October and November with monthly averages of less than 2. Another precusor spot showed up on the EIT 195 magnetogram today with the cycle 24 fingerprint but it is not a visable spot and so not counted. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html

Given the low activity of this month, I’m suspecting that we are going to get a couple more months of less than 2 avg monthly values before cycle 24 is counted as starting, that means an anemic cycle by historical standards. Time will tell, but Hathaway in any event will come out the wiser for it since all scientists when faced with a failed prediction are then given more facts to better understanding.

By: John A

John A — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:21:34 +0000

That would be disappointing if that was the reason, since I would rather have a weak solar cycle to demonstrate whether the Sun or Greenhouse gases was really responsible.

I have no evidence of a connection between Hathaway and Hansen even though they both work for NASA. There are quite a few people inside NASA who disagree vehemently with Hansen, but most don’t make a public display of it.

By: dscott

dscott — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:45:43 +0000

I’m not sure if the excitement at NASA is more over something new beginning and thus to study versus a hidden agenda with AGW in mind. Most of us amateurs are fascinated with the ability to observe in real time were as before we only got to hear about it after the fact. It’s kind of like the CNN coverage of Gulf War I, the first televised war.

The hidden agenda though is AGW, if you will remember global warming is predicted to firmly re-assert itself again in 2009 since global temps (GAT) have leveled off since the 1998 high supposedly due to La Nina or the absence of El Nino. The 2009 time frame is suspiciously coincidental with the Hathaway’s claimed peak. It is as though Hathaway and Hansen are connected in some way. Remember, Hansen claims solar activity has nothing to do with AGW. The claim is TSI doesn’t vary more than 1% throughout the solar cycle. Hmmm, a double standard don’t you think when CO2 has changed even less in the atmosphere to get to 380 ppm? btw- a 1 watt/m^2 difference is a massive amount of energy when applied against the entire daylight side of the earth on the order thousands of nuclear bombs every day. Interesting perspective on tipping points, isn’t it?