+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges Into The Quietest Solar Minimum In A Century

  1. #1
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand

    How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges Into The Quietest Solar Minimum In A Century

    How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges Into The Quietest Solar Minimum In A Century

    ScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2009) — The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

    The year 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

    Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent).

    It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees forecaster David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

    Quiet suns come along every 11 years or so. It's a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. Sunspots are planet-sized islands of magnetism on the surface of the sun, and they are sources of solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and intense UV radiation. Plotting sunspot counts, Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of relative calm—a clockwork pattern that has held true for more than 200 years.

    The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it's right on time. But is it supposed to be this quiet?

    Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20 percent drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays penetrate the solar system, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.

    Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft have also shown that the sun's brightness has dimmed by 0.02 percent at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.

    Earth's upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less "puffed up." Satellites in Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. That’s the good news. Unfortunately, space junk also remains in orbit longer, posing an increased threat to useful satellites.

    Finally, radio telescopes are recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955. After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness at radio wavelengths, particularly 10.7 cm. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions during this solar minimum is an indication of weakness in the sun's global magnetic field. No one is certain, however, because the source of these long-monitored radio emissions is not fully understood.

    All these lows have sparked a debate about whether the ongoing minimum is extreme or just an overdue market correction following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.

    "Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not used to this kind of deep calm."

    Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than what we're experiencing now. To match those minima in depth and longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.

    In a way, the calm is exciting, says Pesnell. "For the first time in history, we're getting to observe a deep solar minimum." A fleet of spacecraft — including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin probes of the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), and several other satellites — are all studying the sun and its effects on Earth. Using technology that didn't exist 100 years ago, scientists are measuring solar winds, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields and finding that solar minimum is much more interesting than anyone expected.

    Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.

    Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.

    But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.
    I'm sure I remember all number of people telling me during various discussions about AGW that there had been nothing unusual about the last 50 years of solar activity yet here we have
    "Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not used to this kind of deep calm."

  2. #2
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    21,322
    Country: United States
    The sun has nothing to do with global warming...

    -- Newsweek.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  3. #3
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    11,551
    Country: United States
    Told ya.

    -dale

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    02 Jun 07
    Location
    Milwaukee,WI
    Posts
    126
    Country: India
    Reminds me of sci-fi novel Sunstorm by Arthur C Clarke & Stephen Baxter.novel's timeline is around 2037.Solar flares are getting common and massive one is expected soon which would disrupt all life cycle on earth. So humans decide to build a shield in space. And later it is hinted that all this (manipulation with solar activity) was done by an alien civilization to destroy humans

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    05 Jul 08
    Location
    I've got my helmet on; you can't tell me I'm not in space!
    Posts
    680
    Country: United States
    Reminds me of a science fiction movie called "An Inconvient Truth"


  6. #6
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Aug 07
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    103
    Country: Australia
    Gee, the Sun, of course.

    Someone call the climate scientists and let them know; because they are obviously unaware of this and haven't factored it into their hypotheses.

  7. #7
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramo View Post
    Gee, the Sun, of course.

    Someone call the climate scientists and let them know; because they are obviously unaware of this and haven't factored it into their hypotheses.
    Global warming theory specifically excludes solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming. That's why we take issue with it. To totally disregard the only actual source of heat as a factor in global temperature change does seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
    By the way I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the patronising attitude at the door, you haven't during your time here demonstrated anything which would warrant you having it.

  8. #8
    chankya's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Feb 07
    Location
    San Jose
    Posts
    534
    Country: India
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Global warming theory specifically excludes solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming. That's why we take issue with it. To totally disregard the only actual source of heat as a factor in global temperature change does seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
    By the way I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the patronising attitude at the door, you haven't during your time here demonstrated anything which would warrant you having it.
    Actually if you read through the article you linked it says at the end:

    According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.

    Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.
    {All emphasis mine}

    So what are you arguing about?
    "Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

  9. #9
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by chankya View Post
    Actually if you read through the article you linked it says at the end:
    I know.
    That is why I linked to it.
    To demonstrate that AGW theory excludes the sun as a driver in global warming.
    Understand?


    I then said that is why those of us who don't believe their theories are skeptical about how they can dismiss the only source of heat to the atmosphere (excluding geothermal) as being irrelevant to changes in global temperatures.

    OK?

  10. #10
    Lord High Hullabalooster Senior Contributor dalem's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Nov 04
    Location
    Columbia Heights, MN
    Posts
    11,551
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramo View Post
    Gee, the Sun, of course.

    Someone call the climate scientists and let them know; because they are obviously unaware of this and haven't factored it into their hypotheses.
    That's right, they haven't. Educate yourself before you spout off, next time.

    -dale

  11. #11
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Aug 07
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    103
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by dalem View Post
    That's right, they haven't. Educate yourself before you spout off, next time.

    -dale
    Are you saying climate scientists don't factor in solar forcing in their AGW theory, or that they are yet to process this latest finding as published in the article?

  12. #12
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Aug 07
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    103
    Country: Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Global warming theory specifically excludes solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming. That's why we take issue with it. To totally disregard the only actual source of heat as a factor in global temperature change does seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
    By the way I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the patronising attitude at the door, you haven't during your time here demonstrated anything which would warrant you having it.
    To 'exclude solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming' is not to 'totally disregard the only actual source of heat'.

    I'm a skeptic myself, but to imply that climate scientists are 'ignoring the elephant in the room' and simply not factoring in the sun in their theory (as implied by yourself and dalem) is what I would consider ludicrous.

    Hence my initial knee-jerk reply, for which I apologise for coming off as patronising.

  13. #13
    Dirty Kiwi Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Posts
    15,723
    Country: New Zealand
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramo View Post
    To 'exclude solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming' is not to 'totally disregard the only actual source of heat'.

    I'm a skeptic myself, but to imply that climate scientists are 'ignoring the elephant in the room' and simply not factoring in the sun in their theory (as implied by yourself and dalem) is what I would consider ludicrous.

    Hence my initial knee-jerk reply, for which I apologise for coming off as patronising.
    Sorry. What I mean to say is that any role in solar forcing is dismissed by AGW proponents, despite it being just as good a suspect as Anthro CO2.
    Here's some links to realclimate, Hansens website, outlining their reasoning across a number of blogs.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...c-cosmic-rays/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...limate-driver/
    There's lots more.

  14. #14
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,433
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramo View Post
    Hence my initial knee-jerk reply, for which I apologise for coming off as patronising.
    I'm not a scientist but I am an engineer.

    There has not been one case where the scientists can come up with a model that we can plug numbers in arbituary (ie, 1 year prediction, 2 year prediction, 5 year prediction ... up to 75 years prediction ... using the longest recorded data known) to match known occurances.

    In other words, if we use the pro-AGW model, then WWII should see an increase in world wide temperature. There was a decrease.

    The proposed science does not match the understood enginering.
    Chimo

  15. #15
    Regular
    Join Date
    12 Aug 07
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    103
    Country: Australia
    Aah! I found it.

    Skip to 3:15



    uh.... [YT] tags appear ineffective, just go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-WU0pV2AXE
    Last edited by Ramo; 06 Apr 09, at 05:30.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Chinese Westernization/Modernization
    By Inst in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18 Jul 08,, 16:20
  2. Great Ball Of Fire!
    By brokensickle in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10 Feb 08,, 06:27
  3. Percentage of minimum wage workers in the US?
    By Shek in forum International Economy
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 25 Jan 08,, 16:37
  4. Geographic Catalysts for Secularization in Western Europe
    By Ironduke in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07 May 07,, 09:57
  5. Newest planet in solar system dubbed 'Xena'
    By Parihaka in forum Science & Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Sep 05,, 04:21

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts