The Sun's Odd Behavior 285
gyrogeerloose writes "Most of us know about the sun's eleven-year activity cycle. However, relatively few other than scientists (and amateur radio operators) are aware that the current solar minimum has lasted much longer than expected. The last solar cycle, Cycle 24, bottomed out in 2008, and Cycle 25 should be well on its way towards maximum by now, but the sun has remained unusually quiescent with very few sunspots. While solar physicists agree that this is odd, the explanation remains elusive."
Anonymous Coward (Score:1, Insightful)
Its George Bush's fault.
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Correlation is not causation!!
Our computer models will show causation. Coding starts on Tuesday.
Re:Enough data? (Score:3, Insightful)
We define odd as anything we haven't witnessed directly before.
Global warming is a prime example. Theres plenty of scientific evidence that we're in just another normal cycle and the heat isn't even close to being abnormal, but since we've never actually witnessed them directly, certain groups of people freak out and think the end of the world is near.
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:3, Insightful)
Be sure to include stations on sinking sand ground from Hong Kong in the sea level measurements and metropolitan area warming in the temperatures. And tree ring proxy data from errm "selected" trees. Hide the decline and make sure your raw data is only peer-reviewed by YOUR peers.
Re:Anthropomorphic (Score:4, Insightful)
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps. People who want agw to be true say "yeah, that sounds good". People on the other side say "that's convenient". Fortunately there are scientists on both sides who say "this needs to be explained and tested (empirically as well as with models"
de Vries Cycle? (Score:2, Insightful)
We are currently over do for the de Vries (Suess) 205-210 year cycle. Hopefully it will just be a Dalton Minimum...
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:1, Insightful)
Aaah, another one who missed the external review showing those claims to be a load of shit.
It's OK, go back to burning plastic in your fire, that's not poisonous in any way.
Re:Anthropomorphic (Score:4, Insightful)
some (many) pro-agw people have been saying for a couple of years that man-made co2 has caused temps to increase but the lack of solar activity has negated the increase so we don't see an increase in measured temps.
But we are seeing an increase [wikipedia.org] in temperature [wikipedia.org].
People who want agw to be true say "yeah, that sounds good".
I don't think anyone in their right mind wants AGW to be happening.
Re:Enough data? (Score:2, Insightful)
400 years is NOT enough data, not when looking at a star that might have a lifespan of nearly 10 billion years. All stars are variable to some degree, and 11 years is a very tiny period.
Dave
PS If the sun is cooling, (yeah right!), then the amount of radiated heat we receive will drop, and that means our core mean temperature will also drop. If that is the case, then why are our temperatures rising? Maybe there is something to global warming being man made ;-)
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:3, Insightful)
You truly do need to be an Anonymous Coward to cite anything on realclimate,org as a reference.
Get a life.
Get an education.
Get better friends.
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:2, Insightful)
Y'know, it's odd how "another" anonymous coward replied here, and was quickly moderated informative. Could be a conspiracy... ;-)
Then let me speak up. The standing assumption is that "solar output" only varies by approx. 0.1%, and therefore has almost no effect on global warming and cooling. IOW, they say that the sun has no effect on how warm or cool the earth is. Yeah, right. That is so pathetically wrong, I can barely comprehend the lack of understanding of how the earth is heated that could result in such a ludicrous contention (with apologies for so badly paraphrasing Babbage).
The problem is that these so-called "climate scientists" assume that measured solar irradiance is in one-to-one correspondence with energy transport from sun to earth. What about poorly or incorrectly measured wavelengths of solar output? What about magnetic coupling from sun to earth? What about other forms of radiation, particles/solar wind streaming from the sun to earth? What about the effect of CMEs hitting or not hitting the earth? I may be _very_ wrong, but in the little reading I've done I've seen no mention of such effects. One thing that bothers me is it seems (not all, but) a bunch of these "experts" have studied these questions just a deeply as I have, which is to say, hardly at all.
I'm no AC. The shrill AGW proselytizers are so wrong, and have garnered so much attention from those who set our collective direction (govt. and the damned UN), that we all deserve to be frightened. What will we do if and when earth begins cooling again, and they all start screaming of the coming Ice Age like back in the '70's? Rush off to fund their "new" research to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, and pass legislation that will retard our national economy hundreds of billions of dollars in excess costs and lost opportunities?
In that case, I simply recommend burning more carbon-based energy sources. Yeah, that's the ticket! </cynicism>
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, my last comment was a joke, and quite clearly marked as such (";-)"). That my post was modded flamebait, and quickly, tells me that someone is abusing the moderation system. This isn't the first time I've seen the symptoms, although it is the first time it has happened to me specifically.
Then let me speak up. The standing assumption is that "solar output" only varies by approx. 0.1%, and therefore has almost no effect on global warming and cooling. IOW, they say that the sun has no effect on how warm or cool the earth is. Yeah, right. That is so pathetically wrong, I can barely comprehend the lack of understanding of how the earth is heated that could result in such a ludicrous contention (with apologies for so badly paraphrasing Babbage).
We have extremely good data on solar radiance variation nowadays; it is not an "assumption". People who think that climate scientists don't take our direct measurements of solar variation into account have very little understanding of the science involved. Who are the "they" you are talking about?
so-called "climate scientists"
Oh, please. Your lack of education about the subject is showing.
assume that measured solar irradiance is in one-to-one correspondence with energy transport from sun to earth.
No, they don't.
What about poorly or incorrectly measured wavelengths of solar output?
Which what? Unless you would prefer we invalidate of our current understanding of EM radiation, we have to accept that what we know about energy transport in that realm holds. Since our understanding of the subject also underlies our technology - including the computer you are typing on, the lights you read by, solar cell technology, lasers, etc, it's an incredible stretch to assume that we are that wrong.
What about magnetic coupling from sun to earth? What about other forms of radiation, particles/solar wind streaming from the sun to earth?
The magnetic field interactions between the sun and earth are fairly well known and have already been shown to have a much, much smaller effect on the temperature of the atmosphere than direct radiance does.
If there are other forms of radiation coming from the sun that we can't detect, it's foolish to speculate about their effects.
What about the effect of CMEs hitting or not hitting the earth?
Since we've been observing the effects of CME impacts for nearly a half a century...
I may be _very_ wrong, but in the little reading I've done I've seen no mention of such effects.
Then do some more reading, and get a decent educational background in the hard sciences. I did more than twenty years ago and as an avid amateur astronomer I follow the field rather closely.
One thing that bothers me is it seems (not all, but) a bunch of these "experts" have studied these questions just a deeply as I have, which is to say, hardly at all.
Which "experts" would you be referring to? The tens of thousands of them who have devoted years to decades of their lives studying the subject?
and they all start screaming of the coming Ice Age like back in the '70's
A few papers and a lot of media attention from ignorant journalists? You really do need to do some more reading - this particular part of the subject has been addressed literally thousands of times in the last five years just right here on this website, and given your low UID, you have certainly had the opportunity to read the rebuttals.
Look; I don't know you, and I don't mean to be insulting, but it's obvious to me that you don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. I've been following this subject for nearly a quarter of a century, I have a good background in physics, chemistry, and mathematics, and I read as many of the papers published in the field as I can find t