Sunspots May Be Different During This Solar Minimum 95
PhreakOfTime writes "According to Bill Livingston and Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, sunspot magnetic fields are waning. The two respected solar astronomers have been measuring solar magnetism since 1992. Their technique is based on Zeeman splitting of infrared spectral lines in radiation emitted by iron atoms in the vicinity of sunspots. Extrapolating their data (PDF) into the future suggests that sunspots could completely disappear within decades." To motivate their interest the researchers mention the Maunder Minimum, which occurred beginning in 1645 and coincided with the coldest part of the so-called "Little Ice Age." Sunspot counts during this period were as low as 1/1,000 of the numbers seen in modern times.
Re:WHERE IS YOUR GLOBAL WARMING NOW??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, we're back to the pre-global warming "We're due another ice-age" 1970s doom-mongering eh?
Never mind, since then, we've inadvertantly added a few blankets. We'll be fine.
At least until the ice-age ends. Then we'll be really in trouble.
Something doesn't add up. (Score:2, Insightful)
So, in the 1600s we had a very low number of sun spots and a little ice age.
In the last decade we've had a low number of sun spots and a temperature spike.
But the people who says that global warming isn't caused by human factors, primarily claim that it's due to this low number of sun spots.
So ... normal sun spot count, normal temperatures. Low number of sun spots, high temperatures. Very low number of sun spots, very low temperatures.
I wonder what happens if we get a high and very high number of sun spots - one will probably push the average global temperature to 300 Kelvin while the other will send it to 350. Wonder which will do what.
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't add up, and that is where the controversy lies. If there is proof that humans are causing global warming, it should be easy to show. However, if the Earth's temperature changes as a result of uncontrollable events happening at the sun, then we need to take that into consideration.
The controversy is very important, and having a calm, level-headed debate where both sides of the issue can discuss the topic without getting shouted down as "unscientific" (sunspot theorists) or "religious crackpots" (human-caused warming theorists) is just as important. Evidence is what will decide this one way or the other, but in order to have clear evidence, we must be able to express our theories in a respectful and open scientific environment. This is why we must teach the controversy.
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:1, Insightful)
If there is proof that humans are causing global warming, it should be easy to show.
Great, it's good to know that if something is provable, it must be easily provable. I've got a couple of things that I'd like an easy proof for:
P = NP [wikipedia.org]
Fermat's Last Theorem [wikipedia.org]
Thanks!
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is proof that humans are causing global warming, it should be easy to show
Why should it be easy? That's part of the problem. The Earth is not a pan on a cooker that just gets hotter when you turn up the gas and cools down when you turn it down. The Earth is a complex web of cycles and equilibria that we don't completely understand.
Heck, stick some ice, water and salt in the pan, clamp on a slightly leaky lid and even that becomes non-trivial - and that's peanuts alongside the Earth.
Global warming (or not) is always going to be a guessing game: if you want irrefutable proof, wait 100 years and see whether Bangladesh is still there. Until then, its a risk/benefit analysis, not a scientific study.
What is known is that basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels in an atmosphere will increase the proportion of solar heat retained by the planet: that much can be proven in the lab. Anybody who rejects AGW needs to come up with some theory that explains why that magically won't happen in the real world. Instead, they're exploiting the fact that its very, very difficult to predict how that extra heat will translate into temperature and climate changes. Sadly, I suspect that there are those on both sides of the argument who don't even know that heat is not the same thing as temperature...
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're citing a "trend" over the last 9 months ?!? I bet most places north of the equator notice a warming trend between January and September.
Re:Something doesn't add up. (Score:3, Insightful)
correlation != causation. As it is, we have a STRONG CORRELATION of man's interaction causing global warming, and likewise, there is a strong correlation of lack of sunspot to global cooling, BUT, can it be PROVEN? Nope.
Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just decide to throw man-made global warming in there as a kneejerk reaction?
Let's try the Wikipedia Simple English-style explanation.
When there are more sunspots, the surface of the Sun is hotter. This makes it radiate more heat than when there are less sunspots. When there are less sunspots, the surface of the sun is cooler. When the sun radiates more heat, the Earth heats up. When the sun radiates less heat, the Earth cools down.
Human activities have no bearing on this process at all.
Re:global warming heretic (Score:2, Insightful)
I plan on boiling in demississippi.