Solar Cycle 24 Has Started

radioweather writes "Solar physicists have been waiting for the appearance of a reversed-polarity sunspot to signal the start of the next solar cycle. As of Friday, that wait is over. A magnetically reversed, high-latitude sunspot emerged on the surface of the sun. Just a few months ago, an 'All Quiet Alert' had been issued for the sun. This reversed-polarity sunspot marks the beginning of the sun's return back to Solar Maximum. Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to competing forecasts on whether it will be a highly active or a quiet low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of validity for some CO2 based global warming theories. Only time will tell."

Re:AGW? WTF does THAT mean?

[teslar]

That's no intro, that's text ripped directly from TFA - which is almost worse in a way. As for AGW, well, use your brain and have an educated guess. What's on everybody's mind these days? That's right, Global Warming. And what's the big debate around this? Right again, whether or not we're responsible for it, i.e. whether or not it's Anthromorphic.

any ham radio gurus?

[FudRucker]

what does this mean for radio propagation for the next year or few years? good or bad propagation? lots of RFI?

Re:any ham radio gurus?

[Enleth]

That depends. Generally speaking, high solar activity is good because the ionosphere is ionised enough and deflects the radio waves better (that's why there's poor propagation in winter - less solar radiation reaches the more distant hemisphere due to longer nights and lower angle). However, too high activity causes interferences and distrupts communication. So it's the best when the Sun is moderately active.

Re:shortwave

[jrmcferren]

Conditions will start to improve. The best conditions will be in three to four years when sunspots peak. When the sunspots peak (and if you can receive single sideband), you will be able to hear hams from around the world using milliwatts. There will be times when you can hear all of the bands being active all of the time day and night.

Re:So wait?

[Reivec]

No, because one has nothing to do with the other. If temperatures are increasing and the energy from the sun is decreasing, then we must be retaining the energy we get for longer periods of time. How would we do that? Greenhouse effect. What causes greenhouse effect? Mainly in our case, CO2, which is exactly what we are pumping into the air in large quantities. If anything, this observation would provide further evidence for climate change caused by humans.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way

[TheMeuge]

Warning: From sources I'm too lazy too look up, I hear a very small percentage of people are not susceptible to the HIV virus. Granted the odds are low, but if some resistant bastard takes your money, well that would just suck. Of course if if they all did it...

I am aware of such cases, which is why I emphasized the requirement for a productive infection, thus requiring the virus to replicate efficiently, which isn't the case when CCR5 is mutated.

Sun spots are cooler than surrounding heliosphere

[Anonymous Coward]

The more sun spots there are, the cooler the surface of the sun. When the sun surface is quiet then it is hotter. Like for the past few years when the sun spot cycle has been winding down to this minimum.

None of the Global Warming theories I've seen take into account water vapor which is a great heat sink which holds temperatures up, and the molten core of the planet which also is a major contributor to planetary heating.

Take a look at what most of the alarmists are attempting to do, slow down the world's economy and cause us to agree to 'carbon taxes' collected by the UN.

The US may use a larger part of hydrocarbon based fuel but we feed more millions world wide than any other country. When you want to limit the use of gas and oil in the US, how many millions are you willing to sentence to starvation to do it?

Fodder for "2012" conspiracy nuts.

[MtViewGuy]

What worries me is that there are too many people out there who want to use Solar Cycle 24 to tie in with the end of the Mayan calendar on December 21, 2012. :-/ And there's good reason for this: the period right after the potential next peak of Solar Cycle 24--when we get the most solar flares and coronal mass ejections--could potentially be right around the December 21, 2012 time period.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way

[sumdumass]

Take a look at this. [ornery.org]

I'm not making any claims to it but it seems to cover and summarize some of the reasons why we should be skeptical. It makes me wonder a few things. I have known this information for a while but I have never seen it presented like this.

I actually found it while doing a search to find out who all the scientist pushing global warming is and why they are supposed to be more right then wrong. As it turns out, this over whelming consensus is still the 1000 or so papers searched for anything specifically saying Man wasn't the cause. Of course they could have said the sun was the cause of man was only part of the cause or anything but because they didn't say man wasn't the cause, it means that everyone agrees that man is behind global warming. Well, if you want to believe what they believe that is.

Anyways, I think your spot on and if they get so upset over being cautious, I would think it is all the more reason to be cautious. There is too much at risk to simply jump in because of peer pressure and ridicule. I don't want to influence your opinion, it seems like you got a level head more then me. So take it for what you think it is worth, I just figured you might enjoy it a little.

Re:discredit global warming theories? no way

[Darth Eggbert]

Am I the only one who notices that a well reasoned and calm arguement never has a reply?