Blank Sun Again

For the second time this month, the solar disk is blank–no sunspots.

Spotless Sun - 23 Jun 2016 - Credit SDO/HMI
Spotless Sun – 23 Jun 2016 – Credit SDO/HMI

This image of the sun taken by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory on June 23rd shows zero sunspots.

http://spaceweather.com/

Thanks to Laurel for this link


25 thoughts on “Blank Sun Again”

  1. The Netherlands, June 24, 2016. Giant hailstones damage cars, break windows in the south.
    Hailstones the size of tennis balls caused millions of euros worth of damage to cars and other property in the south of the country on Thursday evening. The giant hailstones hit the area east of Eindhoven running from Helmond to Venray and Venlo after the development of a supercell storm. ‘It was like a war zone in Luyksgestel,’ said one Twitter user. Such big hailstones are extremely rare in the Netherlands. ‘They were not hailstones, they were balls of ice,’ a spokesman for the Dutch insurers’ organisation told news agency ANP. ‘Cars have been covered with dents and lots of roofs and skylights have been damaged.’
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/06/giant-hailstones-damage-cars-break-windows-in-the-south/
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/giant-hail.png

  2. There are three videos in YouTube by David LePoint that blew me away. His experiments with plasma energy fit neatly into Robert’s claim of sudden climate reversals. In essence, when the sun absorbs energy at a certain threshold, a kind of a doughnut shaped magnetic field forms around the sun at the poles – what LePoint calls a Primer Field. Above that threshold, the sun can’t absorb any more energy. The excess punctures the photosphere causing sunspots and breaks through its Primer Field causing solar wind. When the Primer Field collapses, the sun goes dormant and so do temperatures here on earth.

    I’m going to be an optimist and assume a low frequency of sunspots for now. When they stop altogether, there is probably a delay from when the sunspots stop altogether to when the Primer Field collapses. How much time? Years? Decades?

    • Interesting… But, and this is a BIG but: There is no such thing as a monopole fixed permanent magnet. There is a possibility that the N pole on his red magnet is much stronger than its S pole, and vice versa for the blue bowl magnet. But Any permanent magnet is going to have a North and a South pole.
      I have another question, exactly how does the Sun absorb energy? doesn’t it always create energy?

      • Hmm … returning polarized energy, coming back from the solar boundary perhaps … perhaps originally heading out there via the equatorial plane, as non-polarized energy (thought, do you think … some might suggest that, at least?) … that equatorial plane energy polarizing itself at the solar boundary … bending back, from there … in that case, now as polarized energy, perhaps … accelerating from the solar boundary bend back (stop?) point … back to the center of the star / sun … the sun we see simply being the core of the larger sun, i.e., the one that encompasses everything within the solar boundary …

        When the then polarized energy returns, some (perhaps half?) via the sun’s north pole … some (perhaps the other half?) via the south pole … do the two opposite polarities meet in the center and flash off; i..e, becoming non-polarized?

        Hmm … in David LaPoint’s videos … those returning and oppositely polarized energies returning via the top and bottom “bowls” in his model?

        Meeting thus, in the center … and we wonder why that’s a bright area … perhaps it’s where opposite polarities of energy … meet again? 😉 Ah well, lots to ponder …

        Next question, what energy is incoming into the planetary “body” … especially if the planet itself is also simply the core of the larger planetary body … i.e., the larger planetary body being that which is circumscribed by a planetary boundary, the edge of what science references as the Earth’s Magnetic Field (Van Allen Belts?) …

        It seems solar energy is streaming in via coronal hole streams presently … even with sunspot activity waning … which, if that energy boosts the energy of the planetary body … will we then see global warming … from the inside out?

        Along the way, atmospheric layer disruptions, as well?

        Perhaps, indeed we all live in a yellow solar bubble, a yellow solar bubble … or the sea … of our sun … and its … radiation … for isn’t that what it does … it radiates?

        Hmm …

  3. Every time this happens I noticed after three or four days a quick drop in day and night temperature.
    A few other things can take place and seems random, but earthquake’s and or volcanic eruptions are likely to happen at this time

  4. A few notes on Solar Cycle 24:
    Solar Cycle 24 spotless days: 2008 265; 2009 262; 2010 51; 2011 2; 2012 0; 2013 0; 2014 1; 2015 0; 2016 5; Only 1878, 1901 & 1913 have more spotless days than 2008 & 9.
    Only Cycles 11, 13, 14 & 23 had more spotless days than cycle 24 so far (586), but it still has 2 1/2 years to go.
    Cycle 24’s Maximum sunspot number was 82, but the Landscheidt site says that if the old system is applied (the one that permits comparison with historic solar cycles) it would be counted as a maximum of 50, which is only about 1 sunspot above Cycles 5 & 6 which are the lowest since the solar cycle system began in 1755. Cycles 5 & 6 plus the minima on either side of them coincided with the Dalton Minimum, a period of severe cold in the northern hemisphere.

  5. This isn’t the first blank period of a few days over the last few months since the decline to the end of the cycle started. However, the full sized sun spot count is still below that of the first cycle of Dalton SC5, SC6 was much flatter in output than SC5. It is expected by a number of Solar Scientists particularly those in Russia that SC25, our next cycle, will have a similar shape in output over the whole cycle.
    I suggest that Solar Cycle 24 has already exhibited an output energy cycle well below that of SC5; SC25 may exhibit the same lower output trajectory than SC6. I also suggest that this modern cycle of two solar cycles will be on a par with Wolf or the second pair of cycles of Maunder and far worse in climate terms than Dalton.
    NOAA counts every blemish on the Sun as a Spot, because they can. However, it is entirely possible that the Green Anarchists in charge of NOAA climate recording wish to hide the fact that the Sun has Warm periods which is immediately followed by a cool period of some 30 years.
    It doesn’t look very good if your Lonesome Pine hockey stick graph, which under pins the taxation plans for worldwide hydro carbon usage as an energy source, if it falls flat on its face due to an unexpected, and very inconvenient worldwide mini ice age.

    • Excess Solar Fragments, Blemishes and Unipolar spots.
      The solar community’s is nowadays blessed with telescopes which can image a pimple on the backside of a fly from 400 miles away. Because of the great technology that they have, where they can see every wart on the Sun, they count them as spots. Forgetting a great truth, scientific comparisons should be made on a like for like basis.
      This is certainly not the case with NOAA or NASA where they have a “modern counting system” which has no relationship to the previous, primitive, but very effective counting systems, and lay, but sparse observations from the mid-1600s to early 1800s and remembering that they only counted spots a 40MM optic could resolve.
      This paper attempts to correct the sparsity of data during the early part of the Dalton minimum:
      http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2002GL015640.pdf
      Had modern technology been available during Maunder and Dalton, the same solar Fragment and Blemish counts would have been seen at that time; The nearest spot count that compares like for like in a published way, with effective and fair rules is the LSC count.
      http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
      The American solar community would have us believe that accurate records only began in the 1970 for comparison purposes, if that were true, then why has NOAA discounted the temperature record documented by NASA satellites since that time.
      Is it because the results are inconvenient for their narrative, that the world is continuously warming due to human emitted CO2 , when in fact the vast majority – 99.9% of all CO2 is passed into the atmosphere as part of the 3.85 billion years old planetary carbon cycle, as excess CO2 is given up by warming seawater in the Pacific, from tectonic rifting, and from excessive volcanic eruptions.
      Accurate, peer reviewed, scientifically accepted papers on the climate effects on Solar Minimums have already reported that the climate change events from the abrupt end of the Solar Warm Period into a Solar Cool Period length, is no more than 10 years before the effects become noticeable on the ground, with increased windiness and rain fall thought the seasons, and with winter becoming more and more harsh as the cool cycle progresses.
      I think that in the Northern Hemisphere at least, that premise has been proven by real-time observation.

    • Collusion to degrade and destroy the validity of the SSN record.

      I’ve been keeping tabs on the actual photos used to calculate the sunspot number and am absolutely flabbergasted how the official record is, presumably, being counted. There’s an investigation right now into whether or not the two people tasked with doing the official count are committing fraud—and based on what I’ve seen, it looks likely that in fact fraud is the inevitable conclusion.

      We shall see.

      • Hello Mr. Schmidt,
        How about posting your concern on Anthonny Watts blog WUWT ; it would be very interesting to see how the resident solar physicist, Dr. Leif Svalgaard would address it.
        Best Regards,
        GW

        • Oh yes, what a gas from your point of view.
          A. Watts and Dr. Leif Svalgaard refuse to accept any views or even papers on the current Solar Minimum which disagree with their own.
          This would be like throwing Danial into a cage of Warmist troll cage lions. With the moderator banning any blog entry which disagrees with their own view point, and allowing the biased publishing of any comment which supports the Warmist view point.
          The game in town is to hide the solar minimum, hide the fact that this minimum was predicted, as well as hindcasting previous minimums. The majority of the currently published papers on climate change over the last 40 years, prefaced with forelock tugging toward AGW are worthless.

          • “Oh yes, what a gas from your point of view.”

            And just what are you insinuating ? Just what do you think is “my point of view” ?

            You don’t know me and making such assumptions is very telling about just what kind of person you are, Jimbob.

            • Yes you are quite right, I have made the assuption you were trolling, if you are, the cap fits, If not, I’m sorry for mistaking your view point.
              However, the WUWT site has its issues of bias towards ideas and view points which they disagree with.

  6. Im waiting for it to top 2009 when near 300 days were spot free. that appears to have been a real anomaly. because it didnt get followed on.

    • Laurel,
      I believe you are referring to the period between the start of the cycle when the first spots are observed in the high latitudes of both hemispheres of the Sun and the commencement of the rise to Max in Month 21 of this cycle 24.
      http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24_1.png
      Detailed recording of Sun spot clear days started around 1843:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
      This Wiki data set suggests that Gleissberg affected cycles average around 11.4 years, Solar minimum affected cycles 4, 5 and 6 around 12.5 years, and enhanced warming cycles from cycle 15 onwards, are of less than 10.5 years in length of cycle.
      It possible that this cycle will hit bottom around month 111 but bounce on the bottom for 12.5 years duration, before the next cycle kicks off.

  7. Curious … is there any historical data on incoming energy from coronal holes and the solar wind from those?

    These would appear to have a much higher impact on the layers of the atmosphere, i.e., those getting stirred up … and what do you get when you have more of a mixing bowl in the atmosphere?

    It would seem you may get more storms, as a result; more shifts of weather from the equator to the poles, and in reverse … but also, energy (or charge?) coming in via these solar wind streams at the equatorial plane, that shifts or gets shifted to the poles (auroraes resulting) … and what if that energy is absorbed by the planet via the poles … does that increase the charge density of the planet at its core, as a result … and do you then get global or planetary warming, from the inside out … more earthquakes and volcanoes, resulting … that, coupled with more turmoil or mixing of the layers of the atmospherem above the planet … more severe weather events, resulting … hmm …

    All that said, are we all also experiencing our own internal dynamics of living a midst a sea of rising energies as these energies arrive from the sun … NOT due to sunspot activity … but via coronal hole streams … which takes me back to my original question … are there historical records for levels of incoming solar energy via coronal hole streams of energy?

    And what is energy from the sun … at any and all levels … but radiation .,.. which it radiates? Hmm …

  8. According to Kevin’s link, the graph of sunspots published by the European Space Agency shows about 25 sunspots on June 23, while NASA claims there were none.

    NASA’s credibility is highly suspect, but it’s difficult to imagine what reason they might have for lying. Considering the Machievellian state of American politics, however. . .

Comments are closed.