|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 1, 2009 16:19:18 GMT
Sept 26, 2009
I was just at TWO meetings of solar/steller physicists last week. The general opinion is that minimum was a year ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 1, 2009 16:19:55 GMT
Livingston & PennFor 1027 [1026 he didn't get], the mean of 12 spots over 4 days was: 1917 Gauss for field strength 0.850 for contrast Needless to say [!] the results fall just where they should be: 
|
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 2, 2009 20:55:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 4, 2009 7:49:29 GMT
There is no significant correlation between temperature and cycle length. There is a [weak - and not significant] positive correlation: longer cycles = warmer: www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdfVolcanic eruptions and their climatic effects around the Dalton minimum may indeed be what fools people into believing the culprit is the Sun. |
|
|
|
Post by Solarius on Oct 4, 2009 16:27:08 GMT
(1) They really didn’t see many spots during the Maunder Minimum, so that is not in doubt (2) When Eddy looked at this it was thought [based on Abbot’s measurements that a 1-2% change in solar constant depending on solar activity was possible. That translates into a ~1 degree K change in temperature, so a Maunder Minimum was a plausible cause of the LIA. (3) Measurements during the space age showed a variation 10-20 times smaller, leading to a correspondingly smaller temperature change (4) Jack Eddy gave the After-Dinner talk at the SORCE 2003 meeting lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2003ScienceMeeting/dec03_meeting_final_science_program.htmlNice photo of Jack here: lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdfHe told us that when the spacecraft data became available, it was clear to him that the association between MM and LIA would have to be abandoned on grounds of energy: there is simple not enough variation in the sun’s output to have much of an effect. And I happen to agree with him. |
|
