quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
I know very little about the ins and outs of when one cycle ends and another starts. My understanding is that both cycles can produce spots at the same time. The new cycle produces them at high latitude and they move towards the equator as the cycle progresses, so you can get high-latitude (new cycle) and mid-latitude (old cycle) spots at the same time. Up to now there have only been indications of high-latitude activity while mid-latitude spots are still appearing, so I don't *think* solar cycle 24 has officially started...

In the prediction meeting they asked the two camps what would make them think differently. The "low" camp said "If either the magnetic field at the sun’s poles increases in strength or geomagnetic activity increases before March, 2008" and the high camp said "If solar minimum drags out beyond 2008". As it's currently spotless, I'm assuming we're still at "minimum".

There is a small overlap between cycles, as can be seen in the Butterfly Diagram here and here. This might be too simple, but does a new cycle start when the monthly numbers start to show a consistant rise?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

I think this is a diplomatic way of saying 'when the spot count increases', without getting involved in the different graph smoothing procedures. I never was good at diplomacy. That's why I became a grumpy old man at an early age.

I know very little about the ins and outs of when one cycle ends and another starts. My understanding is that both cycles can produce spots at the same time. The new cycle produces them at high latitude and they move towards the equator as the cycle progresses, so you can get high-latitude (new cycle) and mid-latitude (old cycle) spots at the same time. Up to now there have only been indications of high-latitude activity while mid-latitude spots are still appearing, so I don't *think* solar cycle 24 has officially started...

In the prediction meeting they asked the two camps what would make them think differently. The "low" camp said "If either the magnetic field at the sun’s poles increases in strength or geomagnetic activity increases before March, 2008" and the high camp said "If solar minimum drags out beyond 2008". As it's currently spotless, I'm assuming we're still at "minimum".

Steve, I'm sure you know more about the Sun and its activities than I ever will, but the Solar Influences Data Analysis Centre (SIDC) at The Royal Observatory of Belgium are the centre that NASA defer to. They can be found here at 'sidc.oma.be/'. Afraid I can't give a link there as I seem to be getting censored at the moment.

If you use the 'links' sub-menu from 'education' on the L/H side bar, you'll find some interesting sites there. Unfortunately the Cosmic Rays link is 'broken' (wouldn't you know it), but, after a quick look at some other reference sources there, I can't add any further clarity to spot cycle changeover. Only the thought that as the proportion of new cycle spots becomes greater than the proportion of old cycle spots during the minimum part of the cycle the new cycle can be said to have started (but that's just about the same as you already said).

Hope this helps.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

Muf, what was your question last night?

Best regards, suricat.

hello

quote:

Muf, what was your question last night?

Sorry suricat I've been getting the dreaded internal server error page all night

mufcdiver.

I know what you mean. Try a word processor (e.g. OpenOffice.org 'writer', Microsoft Word, or Lotus Word Pro), highlight and right click to copy to your 'paste board', then right click and paste into the site dialogue (posting) box. If it doesn't work and you get a server error, at least you've still got your post saved and can try again later from your 'saved doc'.

You must have logged on twice because your name appeared twice at the foot of the page in the 'member(s)' area!

Best regards, suricat.

Just a question about 03/uv interaction really.
You seem to have read up on this and I was wondering if you had come across any information about the the interaction between UV and 03 in the northern hemisphere in the troposphere at night time.
If it helps, it also involves atmospheric lensing, northern hemisphere Nx emissions and the Southern Ozone hole!!!??!!
I've tried goolging this but come up with nothing but I do remember reading a snippet that mentioned this phenomenon but now I can't find it

mufcdiver.

What an odd question!

UV is 'line of sight' from the Sun, so one would expect no UV insolation at night. However there are a number of things to bear in mind.

1. It depends whether you are talking about UVa, UVb, or UVc. UVa, the most energetic with the shorter wave length, interacts with O2 and O3, so doesn't travel so deep into the atmosphere because of these interactions. UVb has a longer wavelength and only interacts with O3, so travels further into the atmosphere than UVa. UVc has the longest wavelength in the UV range and doesn't interact much with the 'normal' atmosphere at all and usually strikes the ground harmlessly, but I'm not sure if it reacts with nitrous aerosols and in particular PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds). More on PSCs later.

2. One needs to bear in mind that the Earth has a smaller diameter than Earth Atmosphere, so Solar Insolation to the Earth's atmosphere is greater than the Solar Insolation received by the Earth. Also, when the Sun has set on the Earth, it hasn't necessarily set on the Earth's atmosphere. After a natural sunset at ground level the Sun is still shining on the atmosphere until the atmosphere is shadowed by the Earth's rim. This is particularly apparent at high latitudes as a temporal dilation (it takes a lot more time for the Sun to set on the atmosphere here [especially during spring and autumn] ).

3. 'Atmospheric Lensing' is usually associated with the troposphere and clouds refracting insolation towards the ground, but it is also associated with a temperature inversion that effectively gives the appearance of a 'mirage'. I don't know if PSCs could also give this effect to cause insolation during total dark though. That's the best I can offer on night time insolation.

I need to think on this. Does anyone else have an input here?

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

Your question wouldn't have anything to do with Earth's atmosphere observation by satellite would it?

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

Without a more definitive question I don't know how to answer this.

All I can do is to point you towards a portable file document that is the most (I believe) up to date document with regard to the criteria you have laid down ('atmospheric lensing' apart). Beware, this document is more than 3 MB for download. Just Google "Scientific_Assessment_2006" (including the quote marks), then take 'chapter 4'.

Look at NOy near the end of the chapter and ask yourself why NOx from the internal combustion engine is not included here! If you are interested in the same genre as I am you'll appreciate this. Even if it isn't what you asked for!

Please note! This document is not the final document for publication, though its final publication is not in the 'distant' future.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

BTW. Take the first option after your Google. You can read as many chapters from the site that you want to. I've only read the one that I suggested you read so far.

Best regards, suricat.

suricat, I am trying to post but nothing seems to be getting through the last couple of days,but be sure that I am trying. Heres hoping that this gets through, if it does, thanks for the link

mufcdiver.

Remember, I'm a 'sceptic'.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

1. It depends whether you are talking about UVa, UVb, or UVc. UVa, the most energetic with the shorter wave length, interacts with O2 and O3, so doesn't travel so deep into the atmosphere because of these interactions. UVb has a longer wavelength and only interacts with O3, so travels further into the atmosphere than UVa. UVc has the longest wavelength in the UV range and doesn't interact much with the 'normal' atmosphere at all and usually strikes the ground harmlessly, but I'm not sure if it reacts with nitrous aerosols and in particular PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds).

My quote above. Well I really messed this one up, didn't I!

Full apologies to all, but please read UVc for UVa and UVa for UVc in all of the above! UVb is OK.

Again fullest apologies.

Best regards, suricat.

Hey suricat!
This is a fascinating subject and though I have only started to skim the surface I can not help but think that the Planet is in the throws of a cataclysmic breakdown of its natural cooling system, and unless we bring to reality a pledge that was made in the 80's on the almost total reduction in the use of CFC and Halogen in industry, then reductions in carbon emissions might be simply "papering over the cracks"
Thank you for your(hopefully) continued input
Al

mufcdiver.

As I said, I'm sceptical of the content in this site.

CFCs are only part of the story. Have you noticed the 'unmissable' increase in near surface temperatures during the two 'world wars'? To my understanding this was due mostly to the release of nitrogenous compounds into the atmosphere by explosive ordinance. Thus, NOx in the atmosphere seems to be a thermal forcing. Why?

Well, it now transpires that NOx depletes O3. The 'chapter 4' that I offered from the UN describes how NOy depletes O3, but it doesn't explain that NOy is the same as NOx with the exception that it was formed by insolation and was not 'man made'. I think the UN believes it would be pushing its credibility if it declared war on NOx as well as CFCs.

Time's too short. I'll post later.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Have you noticed the 'unmissable' increase in near surface temperatures during the two 'world wars'? To my understanding this was due mostly to the release of nitrogenous compounds into the atmosphere by explosive ordinance. Thus, NOx in the atmosphere seems to be a thermal forcing. Why?

The "bump" during WW1 is indistinguishable from many other similar bumps.

The "bump" during WW2 had, in my view, on its rise well before the war started, and reached a peak by about 1941 when it was still just a European war.

I would however agree that atmospheric chemistry is jolly complicated and there could be some nasties in store. However, it won't limit the importance of CO2 - it will only add to our woes, particularly as stratospheric cooling (which goes hand in hand with greenhouse warming of the troposphere) will add to the stratospheric ozone losses.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

As I said, I'm sceptical of the content in this site.

CFCs are only part of the story. Have you noticed the 'unmissable' increase in near surface temperatures during the two 'world wars'? To my understanding this was due mostly to the release of nitrogenous compounds into the atmosphere by explosive ordinance. Thus, NOx in the atmosphere seems to be a thermal forcing. Why?

Is this your "creative" graph reading in action again? There is a peak in temperatures in early 1915, followed by a deep trough in early 1917. There is a rise in temperatures starting in the mid-1930s peaking in 1941, followed by a trough in late 1942-early 1943.

Ignoring the utter lack of anything special those peaks, how do these demonstrate any link to wartime activity, no matter how speculative, given that those troughs occurred while any alleged "forcing" would have been increasing rapidly, not suddenly ceasing?

mufcdiver.

quote:

I can not help but think that the Planet is in the throws of a cataclysmic breakdown of its natural cooling system

Muf, I wouldn't exactly call this a "cataclysmic breakdown". I've been watching this phenomenon for about thirty years and it seems to be 'in recovery'. I just don't like the 'disjointed' way in which information is made public in this instance. I looks like obfuscation and even the least apt media can make a 'dog's breakfast' of it. Moreover, it confuses the science institutions by 'omission' as well!

I've now downloaded all the 'pdf's' from that site and I'm looking for some reference (at least) to UVc. If I needed to account for ozone, then I'd at least expect to account for any processes that generate it as well. If you find this reference before me, please point me towards it. If you can't find it, no worries. This branch of the UN deals with 'anthropogenic' forcings to ozone and most ozone production is by 'natural' UVc insolation.

Differences between 'anthropogenic' and 'natural' phenomena are just the first 'hurdle' to an 'accurate' science of understanding nature. It has also become a demarcation point within the UN and a barrier to full understanding.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

I looks like obfuscation

This must be a server error. I didn't paste this. This should read "It looks like obfuscation" (not funny).

suricat.

Steve_M.

quote:

The "bump" during WW1 is indistinguishable from many other similar bumps.

Again Steve, 'open your eyes'. This 'bump' starts at about 1915 and continues as a positive forcing until about 1940 with a near-surface average global temperature forcing of 0.5 degree centigrade over that period. It's almost a straight line on the graph after the Hadley Centre's 'normal smoothing technique'! Or don't you accept the Hadley Centre as an acceptable source of information (I'll admit that I reserve my 'acceptance to credibility' and offer you [and anyone else] the same option)? If so, I would like you to declare it.

quote:

However, it won't limit the importance of CO2 - it will only add to our woes,

I concur, but which of the two is the greater problem.

quote:

particularly as stratospheric cooling (which goes hand in hand with greenhouse warming of the troposphere) will add to the stratospheric ozone losses.

Steve, we've been through this before. Radiative forcings of infrared (IR) have nothing to do with the cooling that the stratosphere has recently encountered! Your confusion is due to the 'obfuscation' introduced as a result of the 'mandatory definition' by the UN of climate change due to 'anthropogenic causes', or 'natural causes'!

The stratosphere is 'heated' by 'insolation' and not 'blackbody radiation'. Think on the 'brown cloud' thermal forcing to the local atmosphere and you are near.

Best regards, suricat.

True Sceptic.

I don't understand what you say in your post. The 'graph' in question was generated by the 'Hadley Centre'. If you have a problem with this perhaps you should take it up with them.

Any 'link' with 'wartime activity' that I have made is only a link with the release into the Earth's atmosphere of nitrogenous compounds and these are now recognised by the UN (in retrospect) as ozone depleting compounds that need further investigation!

Why do you question this?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

I don't understand what you say in your post. The 'graph' in question was generated by the 'Hadley Centre'. If you have a problem with this perhaps you should take it up with them.

Any 'link' with 'wartime activity' that I have made is only a link with the release into the Earth's atmosphere of nitrogenous compounds and these are now recognised by the UN (in retrospect) as ozone depleting compounds that need further investigation!

Why do you question this?

Best regards, suricat.

I'm using the Hadley CRU monthly figures, the same as in the "sunspots vs. temperature" discussion.

What I point out is that you are again reading graphs and seeing only what you want to see. I described what is actually there in the figures, and Steve M said something similar.

There may or may not be some effect caused by certain emissions but to claim a causal link based on temperatures during the 2 World Wars is absurd when those temperatures are not even what you claim.