"All Quiet Alert" Issued For the Sun 463
radioweather writes "The phrase sounds like an oxymoron, and maybe it is, but the sun is extremely quiet right now, so much in fact that the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium issued an unusual 'All quiet alert' on October 5th. Since then the sunspot number has remained at zero — solar cycle 24 has not yet started. There are signs that the sun's activity is slowing. The solar wind has been decreasing in speed, and this is yet another indicator of a slowing in the sun's magnetic dynamo. There is talk of an extended solar minimum occurring. There are a number of theories and a couple of dozen predictions about the intensity solar cycle 24 which has yet to start. One paper by Penn & Livingstonin in 2006 concludes: 'If [trends] continue to decrease at the current rate then the number of sunspots in the next solar cycle (cycle 24) would be reduced by roughly half, and there would be very few sunspots visible on the disk during cycle 25.' We'll know more in about six months what the sun decides to do for cycle 24."
Re:Sunspot numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sunspot numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
During the 60's and 70's, there was talk of a near-future Ice Age. During the 90's and today, there is talk of the ice caps melting and so on.
Re:no sunspots huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OMG, History is Repeating Itself (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue has to do with speed, and considering there is NO DATA that correlates the suns changing temperature with the global climate change we are currently experiencing, your post doesn't even belong here.
The only political issue is caused by people pushing there anti human influenced climate change agenda, ALL OF WHICH has been disproved.
Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, of course, trying to model this in a meaningful way - thanks to Fourier transforms we know that you can build any given pattern out of a sufficiently large collection of cyclic processes, which makes these cycles upon cycles upon cycles feel a bit iffy to me. Feels much more like a chaotic process with long periods of stable equilibrium, which means that while cycles may be useful for general short-term work, their predictive power is always hampered by the fact that the system may abruptly change in unpredictable ways.
Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no sunspots huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
We can all go with CFB's like Gore says and put more mercury in our landfills
We can try ethonal only to discover that (1) it uses more greenhouse gases and (2) the rise on staple crop cost are more likely to cause war and resource fighting than global warming itself.
We can all drive hybrids, never mind they are one of the *least* recyclable cars and no long term plan has been put into place for how to deal with the oodles of battery acid..
Please understand by long term I mean a decade to study thing further, when you become a reactionary for almost any cause you will, in the end, do more harm than good..
Re:Sunspot numbers (Score:2, Insightful)
Selective perception (Score:3, Insightful)
- The "talk" of a near-future Ice Age was from a few scientists and was not supported by the mainstream. Just like the "talk" today that there's no anthropogenic global warming.
- The most recent sunspot minimum (2005) coincided with the hottest year ever recorded for our planet! (Or second-hottest, depending on which set of numbers you use. Also, just to head you off at the pass, note that I mentioned the planet and not just the United States.)
- There is more than just "talk" of the ice caps melting. We just surpassed the previous minimum Arctic sea-ice records by more than 20%!! (Meanwhile, while the Antarctic sea-ice area reached a maximum, the total mass continues to decline.)
Of course, you probably know all this already. If not, and you'd like links for any of this, let me know.Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but they were still WRONG. That's the whole thing. Scientists that make good predictions are smart scientists, and the ones that are wrong, are stupid. Tough break, but everyone else is judged by the same standard. George Bush doesn't get a pass for guessing incorrectly on WMD, a CEO doesn't get a pass for bad financials, developers don't get a pass for making a bad timeline and budget estimate, and for that matter, neither does anyone else. Humanity is in the business of predicting the future, and we all pay the price when we guess wrong, and it shouldn't be any different for those idiots that predicted we'd have a ton of hurricanes, but none came.
Re:Obviously (Score:1, Insightful)
a) The amount of incoming radiation DOES change though. The fluctuation does correlate to current trends, better then CO2 levels do. Current hypothesis show a direct link between cloud formation and solar output, and a direct link between cloud levels and energy available for absorption. Given that the highest guess for a doubling of CO2 (some guessed number) results in a increase of 2 wm2 (from 2 wm2 current hypothesis) potential warming, it is strong dwarfed by the change of 120 wm2 that can be the affect of a cloud. To the study concerning the affects of cosmic rays (still understudy, but very interesting, and marks a strong relationship): http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/sky-experiment_2.pdf [junkscience.com] Calling the Sun and it's actions, especially when Mars, Jupiter and several other planets are experiencing the same thing "irrelevant" kinda of a strong but incorrect statement.
b) Kinda wrong. According to the Global Warming Hypothesis, if CO2 was the major affect warming the atmosphere, it would affect the Troposphere the most, with the Troposphere being warmer then the surface. BUT, after the aforementioned satellite studies, they found that the Troposphere is 1C cooler then the surface. Link: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=1824 [rochester.edu]
c) A large fraction. 14% of the increase. 85% is still natural, and that means a whopping total of 3-4% of the total amount of CO2 is from our fossil fuel release. A good page on the true amounts is laid out here: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html [verizon.net] Before you start trying to chop down the messenger, look at the references. The EPA and the IPCC. And the site adds in the amount of Water Vapor to the affect. Something you have not brought up, even though it is the largest greenhouse gas, amounting to 95% of the total affect.
d) The oceans absorb and release CO2 based on their temperature. There are both the largest absorber and largest releaser of CO2. 20 times what humans produce. And the ocean can easily absorb more CO2 then we, as human, have access to produce through all of our fossil fuels before it becomes noticeable acidic. You claim is correct, but with NO relative reference it is a worthless point. Gif from NASA: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/casa/CO2-cycle.gif [nasa.gov]
e) Right on some, but in all dishonest by omission. Like I posted above, without the relative numbers, you are dismissing one part without allowing anything relative to be mentioned. I would like to see a link to what you say on C12/C14 ratios. Oh, if you google it be careful, because you just end up proving the earth is only 10,000 years old. Bad argument.
Summary:
a) Wrong
b) Wrong
c) Close. BUT: Still dwarfed by all other sources of CO2 emissions. And CO2 is still only the 3% of the total GHE.
Please, if you have some facts to rebut this, lay them down. With links please.
Josh
Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (Score:1, Insightful)
No, I am drawing a link between the article and humor.
But isn't humor meant to be funny?