Are the stars aligned for your flight?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801095810.htm

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:40:46 -0700, bildan wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801095810.htm

So, let me see. If I understand this right, they're saying that the two
year long extended solar minimum is responsible for the last two poor,
cloudy soaring seasons in the UK? Gee, and here I was thinking that they
were due to that nasty old jet stream not moving north for summer.

However, I note that I haven't seen any explanation of why the jet
streams have stayed so far south these last two seasons.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Oct 6, 5:03*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:40:46 -0700, bildan wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801095810.htm

So, let me see. If I understand this right, they're saying that the two
year long extended solar minimum is responsible for the last two poor,
cloudy soaring seasons in the UK? Gee, and here I was thinking that they
were due to that nasty old jet stream not moving north for summer.

However, I note that I haven't seen any explanation of why the jet
streams have stayed so far south these last two seasons.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

http://www.tgdaily.com/index2.php?op...pdf=1&id=42006

Yes, without the normal highs to push the jet north it has stayed
lower for the last two years. You need heat to generate the high to
push it north. I like sun spots! The soaring was fantastic in Utah
in the early 2000's when we had the solar maximum. Looking forward to
more sun spots soon.

On Oct 6, 5:50*pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:03*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:40:46 -0700, bildan wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0801095810.htm

So, let me see. If I understand this right, they're saying that the two
year long extended solar minimum is responsible for the last two poor,
cloudy soaring seasons in the UK? Gee, and here I was thinking that they
were due to that nasty old jet stream not moving north for summer.

However, I note that I haven't seen any explanation of why the jet
streams have stayed so far south these last two seasons.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

http://www.tgdaily.com/index2.php?op...pdf=1&id=42006

Yes, without the normal highs to push the jet north it has stayed
lower for the last two years. *You need heat to generate the high to
push it north. *I like sun spots! *The soaring was fantastic in Utah
in the early 2000's when we had the solar maximum. *Looking forward to
more sun spots soon.

Nothing better than the drought years here in Colorado. Last two
years have been a bust, especially this year.

The Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645-1715, middle of the Little Ice
Age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

On the other hand, 120.8GW of wind energy were being produced globally
at the end of 2008, an increase of 28.8% in 2008 alone. That alone
will yield 280TWh annually. 20% of US electric will be wind generated
by 2030.

Gets me thinking about Edward Lorenz. In a few years, we should have
some empirical data that shows what the down stream effects of
extracting massive amounts of energy from the wind and perhaps solar.
Small with regard to the total energy in the system, but I'm thinking
of butterflies, tipping points, and change. Be interesting to see
what next few decades bring, especially if the solar minimum goes on
and on.

Frank Whiteley

The thing that caught my imagination was that with the Sun's magnetic
field contracted, the Earth is getting hit with much more cosmic rays
from exploding stars and black holes in deep space.

If you've ever watched a cloud chamber with a mildly radioactive
element in it, you've seen the 'contrails' charged subatomic particles
leave. It's a classic way of demonstrating natural radioactivity and
atomic fission.

Cosmic rays are individual protons or heavy nuclei that can hit the
upper atmosphere with the energy of a pistol bullet. A collision with
an atmospheric molecule creates a shower of subatomic particles that
can reach the surface and can be detected photometrically.
Apparently, these particle showers also cause clouds as in the cloud
chamber - or at least condensation nuclei which later cause clouds. Or
perhaps in some cases, punch holes in them. http://media.mgbg.com/wkrg/photos/weather/hole06.JPG

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:50:41 -0700, Tim Taylor wrote:


http://www.tgdaily.com/index2.php?op...pdf=1&id=42006

Thanks for this reference. Its a little repetitive, but is a lot clearer
than the Science Daily story.

Yes, without the normal highs to push the jet north it has stayed lower
for the last two years. You need heat to generate the high to push it
north. I like sun spots! The soaring was fantastic in Utah in the
early 2000's when we had the solar maximum. Looking forward to more sun
spots soon.

Yes, that makes sense.

I learned to fly in 2000 - that and the following three years were really
great soaring seasons. So far its been downhill ever since on the weather
front.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

bildan wrote:
The thing that caught my imagination was that with the Sun's magnetic
field contracted, the Earth is getting hit with much more cosmic rays
from exploding stars and black holes in deep space.

If you've ever watched a cloud chamber with a mildly radioactive
element in it, you've seen the 'contrails' charged subatomic particles
leave. It's a classic way of demonstrating natural radioactivity and
atomic fission.

Cosmic rays are individual protons or heavy nuclei that can hit the
upper atmosphere with the energy of a pistol bullet. A collision with
an atmospheric molecule creates a shower of subatomic particles that
can reach the surface and can be detected photometrically.
Apparently, these particle showers also cause clouds as in the cloud
chamber - or at least condensation nuclei which later cause clouds. Or
perhaps in some cases, punch holes in them.
http://media.mgbg.com/wkrg/photos/weather/hole06.JPG

Don't pay too much attention to Soon or Svensmark - most of the climate
scientists don't, because their ideas about cosmic rays have very little
evidence to support them:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ot-convincing/

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly