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."
Global warming is the cause (Score:5, Funny)
This is clear to everyone except the Denialists.
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:5, Funny)
No it's worse than that.
ITS GALACTIC WARMING!
We're doomed, the end is nigh!
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:5, Funny)
Worse yet, it's Anthrogenic Galactic Warming. It's all the fault of Western Civilization.
*pounds on bongo drum in protest*
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The aliens realized we could hack their systems using TCP/IP, so instead they are just going to slowly boil us off the planet, then reduce the temperature and take all the resources after we die.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to break off this delightful train of thought, but the problem is that the sun is getting cooler. A lot cooler. It's magnetic field is looking dismal. It hasn't thrown a single plane even slightly off course for years, when predictions were it should have caused at least a few disasters by now (at it's higher intensities it can block radio communcations for weeks, make every compass useless (including ill-shielded gyroscopic ones, so it can even make the instruments in older planes miss where the ground
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
Re: (Score:2)
There, corrected it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
ITS GALACTIC WARMING!
So when they speak of the eventual "heat death" of the Universe, it's not what you think it is?
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: Plants are the cause (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Plants are the cause (Score:4, Funny)
No, the sun isn't having its cycle because it's pregnant. DUH.
(Also am I the only one who thought Sun as in the company?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I thought The Sun, as in the newspaper.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also am I the only one who thought Sun as in the company?
Given that the Sun logo appears along side the story, I'd imagine that at least one Slashdot editor had the same thought...
Re: (Score:2)
Burning down all the forests just deals with the leaf inflation problem. Then you end up needing to send all your useless robots off to make planetary toupees.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone please go and tell Chuck Norris to stop terrorizing the sun?
Re:Global warming is the cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Correlation is not causation!!
Our computer models will show causation. Coding starts on Tuesday.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation!!
Our computer models will show causation. Coding starts on Tuesday.
be sure to empty your email's trash folder
Enough data? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Enough data? (Score:5, Informative)
Its a good point, but, ever since Galileo observed that there were sunspots, scientists have observed the sun to be on a fairly regular 11 year cycle of maxima and minima. So, until now, the scientific consensus was that the 11 year cycle was due to some kind of underlying fluctuation in the sun itself. Now that theory has to be revised (or maybe even rejected entirely) as this prolonged solar minimum continues.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe there some longer cycle of...cycles ;) With the Sun now manifesting a shift of this ubercycle, which will give "short" cycle of different lenght.
Re:Enough data? (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe there some longer cycle of...cycles ;) With the Sun now manifesting a shift of this ubercycle, which will give "short" cycle of different lenght.
Epicycles! Ptolemy was right, just not about the planets.
Re:Enough data? (Score:4, Funny)
It's cycles all the way...up?
Re:Enough data? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, all this time we have known about different cycles, but we don't know why they happen. That is a problem. The sun is really just a huge fucking fusion reactor, and having any kind of regularity is confusing. When we understand the layers, processes, and everything else about the sun, it might make a bit more sense.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've got it. If we could only place some sort of "rig" on the sun, with a kind of "pipe"...we could pump solar material to Earth for further study.
I know what you're saying. The Sun's really, really hot. We could pump the solar plasma to a place that was already used to warmth. Like, say the Gulf coast of the US.
Someone make me the president of something.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So then you end up having a leak or a big bad explosion, so that the "rig" "sinks"? Then you spend over a month trying to solve the problem while the Sun leaks all over the world?
No thanks. The oil leak in the Gulf is bad enough. I don't to see what happens when we hand you the Sun and a really big pipe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Someone call the Nobel committee and tell them that the deal's off, and the teamsters who were planning to start work on Monday to tell them that Christmas is going to suck again this year. Kids need to learn that.
You're a hard man, doing hard things, the_bard. I respect you for making this decision. Could you break it to 'lil Barak Obama though? I just keep thinking about how his eyes lit up when I told him my plan... and I don't have the heart.
Re:Enough data? (Score:4, Interesting)
So perhaps there are two (or more) close, but different, mechanisms at place - and the resulting interference gives us the large cycles.
Think about what happens when you combine a 440Hz tone with a 439.5Hz tone.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It goes all the way to 11?
Oblig. Irrelevant Mayan Reference (Score:3, Funny)
Wait. Which b'ak'tun [wikipedia.org] are we in again? Time to invent an enormous stone time machine and bug out, folks. LOL.
--
Toro
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe time is speeding up.
Re:Enough data? (Score:5, Informative)
That is not entirely correct. There is a period after Galileo's discovery called the Maunder Minimum where sunspots "became exceedingly rare", from wikipedia:
The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 by John A. Eddy in a landmark 1976 paper published in Science titled "The Maunder Minimum",[1] when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum [wikipedia.org]
So, is it really odd behavior?
Re: (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:Enough data? (Score:4, Informative)
That's not only wrong, it's nonsense! First, the Norse Settlement [wikipedia.org] died out in the early to middle Fifteenth Century, two hundred years before the Maunder Minimum or the journal you cite. Second, the colony never exceeded a population of about 4500 or so. Not only couldn't the land have supported the million you claim, if you tried to stuff that many people into the sites of the two settlements, they'd be standing on each other's toes.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the colony never exceeded a population of about 4500 or so. Not only couldn't the land have supported the million you claim, if you tried to stuff that many people into the sites of the two settlements, they'd be standing on each other's toes.
Skraelings. Inuit, Thule, Dorset. Greenland/Canada weren't void of humans when the Vikings arrived.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were plenty of other things, both terrestrial and astronomical that can wreak havoc with the climate. Major volcanic eruptions such as the ones on Krakatoa [wikipedia.org] and Mount Tambora [wikipedia.org] are repeat offenders, and there are dozens of other volcanoes that can wreak similar havoc with the climate, including America's very own Yellowstone Volcano [wikipedia.org], and Santorini [wikipedia.org].
We also face similar hazards from space on a timeframe that people can relate to. The Tunguska Event of 1908 [wikipedia.org] is believed to be a comet that exploded in t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"That's not only wrong, it's nonsense! First, the Norse Settlement [wikipedia.org] died out in the early to middle Fifteenth Century, two hundred years before the Maunder Minimum... "
You are correct. Although the northern Norse settlement died out first about 100 years before the southern one. They went down due to the same cooling trend that hit Europe in the 1300's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315 [wikipedia.org]–1317
"The Great Famine of 1315–1317 (occasionally dated 1315-1322) was the first
Re:Enough data? (Score:5, Funny)
The journals literally end mid-sentence with the author describing how it's "suddenly warm", after having lost animals, the city, his family and finally his life, in a process taking years.
Sheesh how slow did this guy write?
Re:Enough data? (Score:5, Informative)
...ever since Galileo observed that there were sunspots, scientists have observed the sun to be on a fairly regular 11 year cycle of maxima and minima...
Where did that "fairly regular" assertion come from?
The cycle is on average just under 11 years in duration, but is somewhat irregular. Individual cycles have varied between 9 and 14 years in duration in the couple of dozen cycles for which adequate observations are available. See http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sunspot-observations.png [infiniteunknown.net] or http://odin.physastro.mnsu.edu/~eskridge/astr102/bfly.gif [mnsu.edu] for example. The variations in sunspot cycle duration do not appear to be related in any simple way to the variations in amplitude.
Re:Enough data? (Score:4, Interesting)
... the scientific consensus was that the 11 year cycle was due to some kind of underlying fluctuation in the sun itself. Now that theory has to be revised (or maybe even rejected entirely) as this prolonged solar minimum continues.
I would seriously doubt that anyone is questioning whether the fluctuations are from an internal process.
We can barely -- barely -- predict weather on the *surface* of our globe for a period of a few days. We can't even accurately predict how many storms there will be in a given cyclone / hurricane season yet, and that's one of the biggest periodic features. To say that we have a good enough understanding (and therefore can predict) what amounts to three dimensional weather in a volume six orders of magnitude larger than the earth to be able to predict even the coarsest features to eleven years is mistaken hubris at best.
We have a few hundred years' worth of sunspot observation. Is it so shocking to think that there might be patterns that are on a longer timescale than our stretch of observations would reveal? Personally, I see no reason to think that the underlying mechanism is not still entirely within the sun. It certainly might be the case that it is due to external influences, but it would seem improbable.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost know nothing on the subject, but I'm thinking the 11 year cycle was empiricaly determined. One has to wonder do we have enough data on the subject compared to the age of the sun?
Why in the world would we need 5 BILLION years of data to make wild speculation about the various Sun cycles?!?!?!
Oh, wait... they actually dont think it's just wild speculation, do they? Ah well. Yeah, in that case, I agree with you. a few hundred years of data is a drop in the bucket compared to the Sun's current age.
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world would we need 5 BILLION years of data to make wild speculation about the various Sun cycles?!?!?!
Oh, wait... they actually dont think it's just wild speculation, do they? Ah well. Yeah, in that case, I agree with you. a few hundred years of data is a drop in the bucket compared to the Sun's current age.
How exactly was the age of the sun determined? By what empirical data?
Two Techniques (Score:5, Informative)
Combine this with simulations about how long it would take an Earth sized mass to form an cool and you can probably come up with reasonably accurate value for the age of the sun. Of course this is just off the top of my head - there may be better and more accurate techniques which geologists and astophysicists have developed.
Re:Two Techniques (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you know that U235 and U238 are produced in roughly equal abundance? This is not generally true of isotopes of other elements. I'm a little doubtful that the production rates can be derived accurately enough from theory to produce a useful age limit.
The amount of helium in the Sun provides a limit on the total energy it has radiated, assuming we're right about how fusion works. Combine that with the observed total radiation of the Sun and you can get what I think is a better crude limit on the Sun's age. You can do better by dating certain meteorites, which appear to have been created at about the same time as the Sun.
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Native Americans have long known the sun to be on an (average) FIFTEEN (15) year cycle.
They are demonstrably wrong. The data is unequivocal that the cycle has been 11 years in length for the past several hundred years. Look at the plot in this article [wikipedia.org]. There is no way that this is in any way consistent with a 15 years cycle. There may be other, longer cycles which the sun goes though - certainly there are multiple cycles for Earth's ice ages - but there is no evidence whatsoever to support a 15 year cycle.
Anthropomorphic (Score:5, Funny)
All these solar power devices are using the sun up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Put another way: Supposing the temperature is going to be X degrees higher by 2YYY, wouldn't it be much better for the increase to be steady and predictable?
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"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Pity that statement is, itself, simply false. This was the warmest decade on record, period. Furthermore, most of the warmest years occurred in the last ten years. Can you cherry-pick you results to find outliers in the 90s, so as to make the current decade look not so bad? Sure. But that's
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: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
In conclusion... (Score:2, Redundant)
We all know that something's up, but we have no idea what the underlying phenomena are, so we have not a clue as to why the sun is behaving the way it is.
Well, its good to see that there are still mysteries left in the universe.
Okay, who broke the Sun? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Okay, who broke the Sun? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, you'd think a massive ball of fusion fire wouldn't need warning signs, but apparently some joker still managed to break it.
And to think that Consumer Reports told me the 3 billion year warranty was a scam.
It was only $5 a month!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My money is on the oil cartel. They had to silence the competition of energy from the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess Mr. Burns got his hands on something bigger than just a giant umbrella.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For future reference, the Sun does not contain any user-servicable parts.
That's what they said about the planet.
2012 (Score:2, Funny)
I think you're off by a bit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We had an extreme low solar output about 400 years ago too, and no one has a clue what caused that. Except most of the world was an ice cube at the time. Now for those of us here in Ontario, we're in a mini-heatwave. But the rest of the country? Below average, last I heard even the easties were hoping for spring to start, they're still getting snow.
Re: (Score:2)
Now for those of us here in Ontario, we're in a mini-heatwave. But the rest of the country? Below average, last I heard even the easties were hoping for spring to start, they're still getting snow.
Uhuh. So? Local climate != global climate. And sadly:
Citation [wmo.int].
But, hey, who wants to look at actual facts, when looking out the window is, like, totally scientific a
Re: (Score:2)
I've certainly seen material about the low sunspot activity. It's just fascinating to live in an age where the things that are supposed to be predictable, aren't.
Those sorts of anomalies sometimes lead to discovery (through comparison). It'll be fun to keep an eye on the work regarding this solar irregularity. In fact, at the risk of injecting my personal politics into this, I propose we give all the money that's going to study of global warming to people studying this, because it's probably a lot more rele
Conspiracy! (Score:4, Funny)
The explanation is simple: the Sun is actually getting hotter, but the climatologists, in their conspiracy to frame things like the Earth was getting warmer due to greenhouse gasses, have forged all records to make it seem like the Sun was at low activity instead. That way the warming climate is blamed on human activity.
I will consider all replies and downmods to this post as further evidence of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy. If you disagree with me, you're obvilously a paid chill or a poor, deluded fool. Or maybe you're just an evil ecoterrorist who wants to destroy our economy despite knowing better.
Go on, conspirators! Give me your best shot!
Re: (Score:2)
Go visit http://www.surfacestations.org/ [surfacestations.org] and see how many US stations are classified as poor or bad ... 69%, or two thirds of the stations have an error >= 2 degrees celcius, and 8% have an error >= 5 degrees celcius.
I'm the dunce ? If that means I'm not willing to accept everything assholes like Al Gore would have us believe, then yes, I'm a dunce.
The release cycle has changed (Score:5, Funny)
because Sun was acquired by Oracle.
Sun misbehaves, humans angry (Score:3, Funny)
The Sun has better and more important things to do than to adhere to our primitive line of thought.
The following analogy comes to mind:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_search.png [xkcd.com]
Easy to fix (Score:3, Funny)
Odd, I just met a an eccentric young man with a bow tie, tweed jacket and braces. He owned a small wooden blue box (about the size of a beach hut) and he said that this was a harbinger of doom and that the sun would go out if he didn't do something about it. He dashed off with a pretty young female in tow....but it's pretty cold and overcast now, so maybe the end is nigh!
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.instantrimshot.com/ [instantrimshot.com]
seriously do you think its the daleks or cybermen thats at fault??
Re: (Score:2)
>braces
What?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Braces are the proper term (ie British, eg Boots & Braces of Skinhead culture) for suspenders, or at least the type that don't clip onto your pants but button. I suspect that is what the OP is saying.
Solar cycles have always varied (Score:5, Informative)
Over the past few hundred years, the solar cycle has regularly varied from as short as 9 years to as long as 14*. The tone of the summary (and the S.A. article) make this sound as if it is a new thing.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles [wikipedia.org]
A.
Preggers? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would certainly add a whole different line of thought as to how stars are born. I guess we'll have to wait for the offspring to see who the likely parent was. I'm looking at YOU, Jupiter...
most? (Score:2)
""Most of us know about the sun's eleven-year activity cycle."[citation needed]
And then it really got odd (Score:3, Funny)
When James Gosling left.
man-made solar system pollution (Score:2)
gota be it. The global warming refracted too many of the sun's rays back, and stopped the core of the sun. Any day now, it will be a red giant, and we'll just be swallowed up by it (when it expands this far, natch).
It's Global Warming (Score:3, Funny)
Darn, someone beat me to the punchline. So. Did anyone check to see if it's still plugged in?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Darrians (Score:2)
Obviously, the Imperium has struck a deal with the Darrians to destabilize the Solomani Confederation by striking at the capital system.
Sorry, had to be done.
Just a prelude... (Score:2)
... for the solar explosion in 2012 that wipes out all life. Mayan calendar FTW!
Livingston and Penn tell an interesting tale (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want a solar story that adds a bit more mystery to the rehash of the current solar tale in the linked article, google up Livingston and Penn about the observations that the sunspot frequency is diminishing. In the past, the solar flux would match up to the sunspot number closely. Beginning some twenty some odd years ago, this century long curve matching parted ways. To sum up the mystery, in ten years time, solar cycles will continue. It's just there won't be any more sunspots. (a little hyperbole,
Clearly, it's the Oracle (Score:2)
Enough said
You insensitive clods! (Score:2)
Effects on the weather (Score:4, Interesting)
Over on the various weather forums we've been discussing the solar minimum for the past couple of years, as in the UK at least there's a strong correlation between climatic cold spells and low sunspot activity (the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago coincided with the Maunder minimum, for example). There was another minimum in the early 1800s, again coinciding with a colder period in the UK climate. It was during this time that Charles Dickens popularised the idea of a White Christmas, something which hasn't occured in 40 years here (30 miles east of London).
The effects are pretty immediate in climating terms, with an onset of years rather than decades. Although yes, the Sun's becoming more active there's been a lot of discussion as to whether the low solar activity was responsible for the coldest winter in 17 years in England (and longer than that in Scotland).
The Sun's effect on the climate is probably beyond any numerical weather prediction models at the moment but it'd be fascinating to see what the effects would be if we were to experience a prolonged period of much lower solar activity than normal!
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
None of which changes the fact that, during *this* solar minimum, the global has continued to warm, which cleanly rules out the sun as the primary driver of the global warming we are witnessing.
Similar situation (Score:2)
"What's not so gratifying is we have no clue why any of these effects are happening."
Well, it's not like they had any clue before as to why there was an eleven years' cycle, so the situation hasn't changed that much.
watch this video (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT8bGxFu4wA [youtube.com]
Flashback 20 years... (Score:2)
*not a recommendation of the novel, esp. for Zelazny fans.
oversimplified (Score:2)
Too Quiet... (Score:2)
It's digesting (Score:2)
Sun's periodicity? (Score:2)
The Sun's sunspots actually have many periods. ~11 yrs, ~22, ~87, ~210, ~2300, ~6000 yrs. The overall sunspot count is a combination of these periods. So where are we in all of these cycles?
Sunspots are actually cold spots on the Sun's "surface" (photosphere). The Sun has many other layers (core, radiative, convective, photosphere, chromosphere, corona). I am sure that each layer has it's own phenomenon, with their own periodicities. Each layer, its features, and their periodicities, influence the layers ar
The reason. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think this might just be Captain Larry Ellison closing the deal with the Sun.