What's down with the Sun? Major drop in solar activity predicted

Jun 14, 2011
The Sun viewed in visible light, at minimum phase (2006) and maximum phase (2001)

(PhysOrg.com) -- A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

As the current sunspot , Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the interior, visible surface, and the indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.

The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the , which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, which is half of the Sun’s 22-year magnetic interval since the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.

Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week. Using data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) of six observing stations around the world, the team translates surface pulsations caused by sound reverberating through the Sun into models of the internal structure. One of their discoveries is an east-west zonal wind flow inside the Sun, called the torsional oscillation, which starts at mid-latitudes and migrates towards the equator. The latitude of this wind stream matches the new spot formation in each cycle, and successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

"Butterfly diagram" shows the position of sunspots over 12 solar cycles. Sunspots emerge over a range of latitudes centered on migratory jet streams that follow a clear pattern, trending from higher latitudes to lower latitudes on the Sun. The active latitudes are associated with mobile zonal flows or "jet streams" that vary through the cycle.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior. For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot.

Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.

Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun's surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.

Moving outward, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s Sunspot, NM, facilities has observed a slowing of the “rush to the poles,” the rapid poleward march of magnetic activity observed in the Sun’s faint corona. Altrock used four decades of observations with NSO’s 40-cm (16-inch) coronagraphic telescope at Sunspot.

“A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun,” Altrock explained. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun.”

Altrock used a photometer to map iron heated to 2 million degrees C (3.6 million F). Stripped of half of its electrons, it is easily concentrated by magnetism rising from the Sun. In a well-known pattern, new solar activity emerges first at about 70 degrees latitude at the start of a cycle, then towards the equator as the cycle ages. At the same time, the new magnetic fields push remnants of the older cycle as far as 85 degrees poleward.

“In cycles 21 through 23, solar maximum occurred when this rush appeared at an average latitude of 76 degrees,” Altrock said. “Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23’s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat). No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”

All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.

“If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

Explore further: Bacteria manipulate salt to build shelters to hibernate

Provided by National Solar Observatory

5 /5 (28 votes)

Related Stories

Sunspots could soon disappear for decades: study

Sep 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless ...

Mystery of the Missing Sunspots, Solved?

Jun 18, 2009

The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years. Now, for the first time, solar physicists might understand why.

How the sun gets its spots

Jan 07, 2011

Sunspots are huge, dark, irregularly shaped--and yet, temporary--areas of intense magnetism on the sun that expand and contract as they move.

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

Sep 03, 2009

The sun is in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Weeks and sometimes whole months go by without even a single tiny sunspot. The quiet has dragged out for more than two years, prompting ...

The Sun Loses its Spots

Jul 24, 2007

While sidewalks crackle in the summer heat, NASA scientists are keeping a close eye on the sun. It is almost spotless, a sign that the Sun may have reached solar minimum. Scientists are now watching for the ...

Study may explain the extended solar minimum

Mar 15, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The recent solar minimum extended fifteen months longer than predicted, and a new study may explain why, and improve the predictions for future solar cycles.

Recommended for you

Bacteria manipulate salt to build shelters to hibernate

3 hours ago

For the first time, Spanish researchers have detected an unknown interaction between microorganisms and salt. When Escherichia coli cells are introduced into a droplet of salt water and is left to dry, b ...

How do we terraform Venus?

3 hours ago

It might be possible to terraform Venus some day, when our technology gets good enough. The challenges for Venus are totally different than for Mars. How will we need to fix Venus?

Biomarkers of the deep

4 hours ago

Tucked away in the southwest corner of Spain is a unique geological site that has fascinated astrobiologists for decades. The Iberian Pyrite Belt (IPB) in Spain's Río Tinto area is the largest known deposit ...

User comments : 114

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rawa1
1.2 / 5 (32) Jun 14, 2011
My feeling from the whole event is, the solar system passed through dense cloud of dark matter, which pushed the center of mass of solar system beneath the surface of Sun and it stopped the surface circulation of solar plasma with Coriolis force. It brought the period of weak cooling during 2000-2010 years. Now it seems, the cloud is already decaying and it will lead into gradual increase of solar activity again.

So we can expect another period of global warming, which could be probably slightly worse, than before 2001 year, because of superposed antropogenic global warming. But it should vanish during next thirty years gradually.

The source of dark matter is disputable, but I presume, it can origin from neutrino flare of the central black hole (most probably), or it surrounds some invisible approaching massive object in Oort cloud or it resides near galactic plane.
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (24) Jun 14, 2011
wow, that's big news. Three seperate measurements which all show signs of the sun either being late or skipping a cycle. Probably not quite as bad as when that happens to your girlfriend, but still a big deal.

rawa1:

You are totally wrong. At least use google before you throw out some stupid crap. Previous periods of low solar activity are associated with cool periods on Earth. The Maunder minimum coincides with the little ice age, and the Sporer minimum also coincides with a cool period. Which 'could' mean that we'll see a return of glaciers and polar ice. Should be interesting to find out over the next couple decades if that's true or not. Only time will tell.
emsquared
2.8 / 5 (18) Jun 14, 2011
This is pretty much what I've been holding out skepticism regarding AGW for. Going to be a very interesting decade or so for AGW theory...
Rohitasch
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2011
Another Maunder Minimum means another mini ice-age! Tra-la-la!
Necoras
2.8 / 5 (33) Jun 14, 2011
This is pretty much what I've been holding out skepticism regarding AGW for. Going to be a very interesting decade or so for AGW theory...


But didn't you know? The Earth's climate isn't affected by solar output, only by CO2 levels.
Nik_2213
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 14, 2011
Good Science: They measure, they predict, they await falsification...
GSwift7
2.4 / 5 (25) Jun 14, 2011
But didn't you know? The Earth's climate isn't affected by solar output, only by CO2 levels


Well, if you want to be a warmist and only talk about TSI, then there's no such thing as solar max and min. The TSI doesn't change much either way. That's only a tiny part of the sun's effect on us though, but shhhhh don't talk about that.

I guess we'll find out in our lifetimes after all. I was thinking we wouldn't know soon enough to crucify Gore and his Hockey Team before we all grow old and die. IF the solar minimum actually happens, and IF the earth cools in response, etc, etc. A lot of ifs, so don't get carried away. So, either we all have to admit we were wrong and let Gore keep that Nobel prize or we get to make him into the biggest joke of our generation. It's show time either way, if the minimum lasts.
emsquared
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 14, 2011
So, either we all have to admit we were wrong and let Gore keep that Nobel prize or we get to make him into the biggest joke of our generation.

Well, you'll never be able to take away the invention of the internet from him!
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (29) Jun 14, 2011
Well, you'll never be able to take away the invention of the internet from him!


Wait, I have a great movie idea: "An Inconvenient Solar Minimum"
cyberCMDR
4.3 / 5 (25) Jun 14, 2011
Believing that only one phenomenon controls something as complex as climate creates a false dichotomy. Of course there are multiple factors, the sun's cycle being one of them. Assuming CO2 (among other gases) does act as a greenhouse gas, this solar minimum (and attendant cooler temps) might be perfectly timed to help us survive the transition from fossil fuels. Now if we can just expand our energy options with renewables and safe nuclear before we exhaust our fossil fuels, we'll leave more resources (and a healthier planet) for our grandkids.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 14, 2011
Assuming CO2 (among other gases) does act as a greenhouse gas, this solar minimum (and attendant cooler temps) might be perfectly timed to help us realize how small the effect of co2 really is.


There, I fixed it.
emsquared
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2011
Congratulations, thermodynamics.

You provide no relevant response to the article or to any of our responses, just the obligatory 1 rank because you're a pathetic, intellectual coward. Way to be.
emsquared
3.2 / 5 (18) Jun 14, 2011
Believing that only one phenomenon controls something as complex as climate creates a false dichotomy.

As I've stated in just about any AGW thread I've been a part of, I would also never argue that CO2 doesn't have SOME effect. But if the IPCCs predictions don't show through whatever effects a solar minimum might have, then IMHO there's not a whole lot of an argument, on the basis of CO2 and global warming, to stop using fossils for these reasons.

Now if we can just expand our energy options with renewables and safe nuclear before we exhaust our fossil fuels, we'll leave more resources (and a healthier planet) for our grandkids.

Agreed, there are a million reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 or global warming to transition out of fossils.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2011
You provide no relevant response to the article or to any of our responses, just the obligatory 1 rank because you're a pathetic, intellectual coward. Way to be


he must be busy. His responses are usually quite good, though he tries to throw in his agenda disguised as fact sometimes. That's just human nature though.
thermodynamics
2.8 / 5 (19) Jun 14, 2011
emsquared: Actually, I marked people from 1 to 4 depending on their response. Unless you think that someone is precluded from ranking for some reason, that is the way we do things. I have been aboard these discussion groups and have contributed hundreds of responses, some of them quite verbose. For instance, in this section I have rated GSwift7 from 1 to 4 depending on his input. As for you, you have said nothing of worth and I have marked you as such. I am making a contribution here - I have just been watching the discussion first.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2011
:P told ya so. I love saying that.

emsquared's last comment was quite good though. I agree that the size of the effect of the minimum will be important, if it happens.
emsquared
2.6 / 5 (21) Jun 14, 2011
he must be busy.

It's just completely ludicrous and blatantly academically disingenuous, so I like to call ppl on it. I'm doing nothing more than expecting due diligence out of the science behind, arguably, THE most important set of policies in modern times and he, and all the other self-declared agents of science here that can't stand it when you expect due scientific diligence out of their agenda, rank you a 1 for it. It's disgusting and belies the fact that the politics motivates their beliefs, not the science. I like to make sure everyone realizes that.
CSharpner
4.8 / 5 (23) Jun 14, 2011
Congratulations, thermodynamics.

You provide no relevant response to the article or to any of our responses, just the obligatory 1 rank because you're a pathetic, intellectual coward. Way to be.


Unfortunately, this site has been on a downward spiral of civility for a while now. Every comment thread turns into a political debate to see who can spew the most hate and downvotes. I'm quite sick of it myself. Use the "contact us link at the bottom of this page to let'em know what you think of it, and click the "report" link under every post that violates the physorg posting rules of being civil and on topic. That's the only way this place is going to get cleaned up.

Also, don't put too much value on your current rank. One thread of honest discussion can trigger those types to downvote your rank to oblivian.
jjoensuu
3.5 / 5 (26) Jun 14, 2011
Solar minimum: more global warming
Solar maximum: more global warming

weird thing this global warming...
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2011
Clarification: I have no opinion of the individual that emsquared was refering to. I was speaking in general terms.
emsquared
1.7 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2011
As for you, you have said nothing of worth and I have marked you as such.

Oh. So, stating the basis for my skepticism and my anticipation for the coming decade of science (as I did in my first post), is not of worth? I s'pose not, to one who doesn't really care what future science has to say.

And yes, heaven forbid there be any humor allowed in such patently vitriolic exchanges.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2011
This should also make for a good test of Svenson's ideas, so IF we get a grand minimum, it'll be time for quite a few theories to either put up or shut up, climate models among them. That's still a big IF though.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (21) Jun 14, 2011
emsquared: Just a little clarification. Your comments about my pathetic intellectual cowardice reflect a serious chip on your shoulder. I have gone through a number of long debates with a lot of other folks (where have you been) without having to resort to name calling.

Ignoring the vitriol, the opportunity forded by a potential solar minimum is outstanding. That would give us the chance to evaluate the claims by opposing groups about the contribution of CO2 and other effects. This is something testable if the paper is correct. If the globe continues to heat and the solar constant is not constant and decreases, it is a strong argument for the AGW approach. If the solar "constant" decreases and the earth cools it is an argument against AGW as an important issue. What a great opportunity. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of other variables that have to be factored in, but if there is a change in the sun and we see a change in the earth it is a great tool. (cont)
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2011
Continued: The present models can be tested against real changes if we see a change. The idea of cosmic rays affecting clouds will be able to be tested. Even no change will be an important result. However, the present research into the effect of the largest heat sink (the oceans) and the effect of aerosols and clouds will also have to factor in. We have a lot of opportunity if this paper is true.
LariAnn
2 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2011
IMHO, IF the Sun is going into a "grand minimum", then now is the time to ramp up our production of CO2 and methane to prevent the planet from cooling too much. Instead of taxing carbon dioxide emissions, we should now PAY to encourage GREATER production of greenhouse gasses so we can keep the planet warmer through any impending cold period. How about it?
emsquared
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 14, 2011
Also, don't put too much value on your current rank.

I value it like a soldier might value a scar. If I'm ranked high, someone found what I had to say of some worth, sure I like that - I primarily visit physorg to read and learn, but if I can elucidate a topic for someone or make them smile on the other side of the screen, then I'm all the more happy for that - and if I'm ranked low I've at least probably made someone think or in most cases here, doubt themself and that, my friend, is gold.

I'm not generally provocative here, I don't have the time to back it up, so I take comfort in knowing that anyone who ranks me 1 out of hand is so pitifully afraid and full of self-doubt that they are 1.) dependent on their perception of power through the ranking system to feel good about themself, and/or relevant here, which leaves me with nothing but pity for them, and 2.) that they're not worth paying attention to.
sstritt
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2011
This should also make for a good test of Svenson's ideas, so IF we get a grand minimum, it'll be time for quite a few theories to either put up or shut up, climate models among them. That's still a big IF though.

If you mean Svenmark's theory- I agree.
freethinking
2.7 / 5 (20) Jun 14, 2011
My fear is that AGW is proved false AND we are heading into a time of global cooling. However as long as we havent bankrupted ourselves we should be able to cope with gobal cooling.

The good thing is in the next 5-10 years if the sun continues to behave the way it is today, is that we will know for sure how much the sun affect our climate.
Mahal_Kita
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2011
So what about it.. The Sun is over 4 billion years old and we observe it someting like a few decades for real now. What does this window of observation tell us when we can't even predict weather locally for more than three days in advance? Aren't we a little arrogant here? There is so much to learn before we can predict anything like the solar weather...
emsquared
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 14, 2011
Your comments about my pathetic intellectual cowardice reflect a serious chip on your shoulder.

No, my comments reflect that I believe people like you, who think they can de-legitimize someone by throwing down a 1 on this ranking system are pathetic for using that tactic, which you are. But if you consider standing up for an academic principle to be a chip on my shoulder, then sure. A chip there be.

You know it doesn't make you any more correct, nor the recipient incorrect. You simply don't have a relevant, legitimate verbal response to something you've seen that you don't like, so you chalk up your semi-anonymous opinion in the form of a number that, for a brief second, makes you feel good about yourself. Sounds kind of pathetic to me.
Ignoring the vitriol...

You sure about that thermo? You sure that your cowardly, passive-aggressive obligatory down-ranking isn't a special physorg brand of vitriol? Make no mistake. For all your posturing you are just a pitiful troll.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (20) Jun 14, 2011
Freethinking: You are exactly right. If the globe heads toward cooling or continues toward warming we should know more about the Earth and the climate as the result of increased scrutiny and experimental results. My concern is that no matter what we learn there will be groups who hang onto their old ideas. I am one of those who follows the science and I lean toward AGW. However, there are others on this forum who follow the science and lean the other way. I would like nothing better than to be able to falsify one view or the other. However, there are others on the forum who will hold onto their views (for or against AGW) no matter what the results. That is my concern about the discussions. You say you "fear AGW is proved false". I fear that it will be falsified either way and the evidence will be ignored.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2011
1.) dependent on their perception of power through the ranking system to feel good about themself, and/or relevant here, which leaves me with nothing but pity for them, and 2.) that they're not worth paying attention to.
-Or they are just having fun. Or they object to stuffed flounder language like:
It's just completely ludicrous and blatantly academically disingenuous
Or:
It's disgusting and belies the fact that the politics motivates their beliefs, not the science. I like to make sure everyone realizes that.
Actually in truth you just resent getting bitchslapped like anyone else, at least without the chance of reciprocation. Right? Confronting ones accuser is in the constitution. Eye for an eye is in the bible.

Lets see, the topic... I dont like the idea of harsher winters as I was going to relocate to wisconsin. I had a funny notion years ago that perhaps gaian gods concocted industrial species like us in order to offset ice age cycles on their planets.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
IMHO, IF the Sun is going into a "grand minimum", then now is the time to ramp up our production of CO2 and methane to prevent the planet from cooling too much.


They may not have much effect anyway. Don't be hysterical.

If you mean Svenmark's theory- I agree


lol, thanks, SvenSmark is what I meant. Multitasking=bad.

However as long as we havent bankrupted ourselves we should be able to cope with gobal cooling.


Yes, economics and war play a much larger role in the wellfare of mankind than climate changes. We as a species have survived an ice age with sticks and stones tech.

What does this window of observation tell us when we can't even predict weather locally for more than three days in advance?


More than we knew before, and weather forecasting is much better than 30 years ago.

I am one of those who follows the science and I lean toward AGW. However...


My main beef is with exagerated alarm, not with the basic theory.
emsquared
2.7 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2011
Or they are just having fun. Or they object to stuffed flounder language like:

That makes for a nice transparent shield of nonchalance. What I said about Gore was just having fun, 1 ranking that is petty. The intellectual equivalent of, "shut up!". Also, sorry you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader if you can't understand 1.) the need for brevity here and 2.) the accuracy of my words.

To say, "It's an act that in any form, is always deserving of derision and is the actions of a person who knowing and willfully disregards the principles of academic debate in an academic forum, in the guise of academic debate." Just didn't have the same ring.

in truth you just resent getting bitchslapped like anyone else

A bitch-slap would be if a 1-rank actually made a difference or proved anything, what the trolls here engage in is simply well, trolling.

What's even more trollish and pathetic is to make two accounts so you can double 1-rank someone.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2011
Ummm... emsquared. If you got double ranked at a 1, that might just mean that two of us didn't like the lack of substance in your comments. When you keep using derogatory terms for someone you have never met you have to expect a bit of reaction back.

Can you stick to the topic - which in this case is very interesting. We have a chance to actually falsify hypotheses that have been put forward in scientific and political realms alike. With the new abilities we have to measure the solar output and the effect on the atmosphere, this is going to be very interesting. One of the surprises we have seen lately is the unexpected influence of UV related to sunspots. Combine that with a minimum and we should have some very interesting results.
orgon
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2011
Previous periods of low solar activity are associated with cool periods on Earth.
Yep - this is exactly, what this model explains - this association. But why the Sun interrupts its activity suddenly? It's another, deeper question.

We can consider for example these indicia: The geovolcanic activity of Earth is increasing. Global warming melts the glaciers. It manifests over whole solar system, but it appears to originate from the bottom of the ocean. The frequency of asteroid impacts on Jupiter, Saturn and Sun is increasing. The values of speed of light and gravitational constants are changing. The iridium prototypes are dilating and losing their mass.

I handle the physics like the detective story: you have many indicia and you should deduce, how they're related mutually. You can never succeede with it, if you would follow bilateral dependencies, which mainstream physics is usually testing by now. Aether model is about emergent interactions of many objects at the same moment.
Herbelin
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2011
Not enough empirical observation to justify much of this conversation...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (16) Jun 14, 2011
Fellow human
A bitch-slap would be if a 1-rank actually made a difference or proved anything, what the trolls here engage in is simply well, trolling.
Your emotional zipper is down:
That makes for a nice transparent shield of nonchalance. What I said about Gore was just having fun, 1 ranking that is petty. The intellectual equivalent of, "shut up!". Also, sorry you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader if you can't understand 1.) the need for brevity here and 2.) the accuracy of my words.
And I think you used the word derision in a less than appropriate manner.

I only recommend caution. 1/5 rating can provoke wars wasting hours downrating hundreds of comments with dozens of sockpuppets. This is why otto is now a ghost. But his spirit lives on. My head is bloody, but unbowed etc.
orgon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
In my model the key role is played with neutrinos. Do you remember the 2012 movie? You should do. The normal neutrino are accelerating fusion and slowing fission, the antineutrinos have the opposite influence. The neutrinos are tiny, but they're many of them in vacuum. The antineutrinos are balancing the observable matter with antimatter. Just the fastest neutrinos can be detected directly with detectors, the majority of the them is in thermal equilibrium with CMBR. Their speed is lower, than the escape velocity of Sun, so they're surrounding it like sparse invisible cloud of cold antimatter. The Sun core is generating normal neutrinos, which are annihilating with anti-neutrinos in pair of hidden jets, which are follow the rotation of Sun core. We could say, the Sun is behaving like the invisible neutrino pulsar. The concentration of neutrinos of both types in cosmic space can be traced with speed of decay of radioactive elements at spaceprobes.
orgon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
You can imagine the nuclear fusion like the coalescing of tiny dense mercury droplets. Their merging requires the temporal formation of thin neck with strongly negative curvature of surface. Of course, such negative curvature is formed more easily, when some neutrino flies through the place. The anti-neutrinos, which are behaving like tiny bubbles of vacuum accelerate the nuclear fission instead. They're accelerating the radioactive decay of potassium in the marine water and they're heating it in such a way. This is the reason, why we are observing so called global warming anomaly: the heating of oceans is much more pronounced, than the heating of atmosphere.

http://physicswor...ws/42356

The cloud of neutrinos increases the density of vacuum and it slows down the light in it. We cannot notify it so easily, because our time and meter prototypes are both based on the speed of light in vacuum, but when we compare it with iridium prototypes, we detect the difference.
orgon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
What I'm saying here is widespread over many articles published here at physorg. You cannot realize, what actually happens here, until you don't realize all articles at the same moment. The problem is, most of people are of short memory. They're twaddling here many hours, but they don't get the connections. For example, most of you read about mysterious loss of iridium kilogram prototype. If you place such prototype into more dense vacuum full of neutrinos, the lost of weight suddenly gives sense in the same way, like the mysterious dilatation of iridium meter prototype. Massive objects literally swell in more dense vacuum like the sponge, when immersed into watter, because their intrinsic curvature of space-time becomes balanced with those of vacuum itself.

http://www.physor...759.html

http://www.physor...s64.html

Many people are asking me for some predictions of aether theory. Now we can observe, how such theory is working in real time.
wealthychef
5 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2011
So what temperature difference is likely on earth due to the sun cycle?
orgon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
Now, how the solar cycles are formed.

It's well known, the center of mass of solar system is not at the center of Sun. Due the mass of large planets, this center actually revolves the Sun around complex paths. The important is, the solar plasma is circulating from core to surface like the hot air in atmosphere and the excentricity of center of mass is causing the switching of the direction of solar plasma with Coriolis force. Because the Jupiter planet is heaviest one, the main period of solar cycle corresponds the orbital period of Jupiter planet. But when the solar system is covered with large invisible cloud of neutrinos, the neutrinos will concentrate around massive objects like their invisible atmosphere, which will balance the influence of another planets. The plasma circulation will stop its regular direction switching and it will get into metastable regime. The activity of Sun becomes quiet, because it's trapped and frozen inside of invisible neutrino cloud.
orgon
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
So what temperature difference is likely on earth due to the sun cycle?
The mutual rotation of planets generates complex periodicity of solar activity, for example the mutual positions of Neptun and Uranus correlate well with medieval minims of solar activity. It's probable, the period of low solar activity is really cooling the weather, because it makes the atmosphere more transparent: the particles of solar wind are serving like condensation nuclei. This effect can explain, why the global warming slowed down in period 2000-2010, when the solar activity reached its minimum. It's evident, the heating effect of neutrinos from bottom is superposed with heating effect of Sun from top of atmosphere - we cannot expect simple prevailing mechanism of global warming, which could explain all subtleties observed in recent time. I presume, the anthropogenic influence to global warming is superposed there too - but it's difficult to say, how important it really is in this moment.
orgon
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 14, 2011
For example, the medieval astrologers did afraid of conjunction of planets. Such mass asymmetry increases the Sun activity, which makes the whether more dry, because the particles of solar wind are seeding many tiny droplets of water at the atmosphere of Earth. These droplets are too small to be able to fall at the surface and they evaporate before they can bring a rain to the inland. Therefore the conjunction of planets can be correlated with droughts, bad crops times and wars for sources. This connection could bring a rational core into some medieval astrological "ramblings".
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2011
Dear Sol,
I'm sorry that you haven't been feeling well, lately.
I hope that you get better soon.

Your pal,

Caliban

Bigblumpkin36
not rated yet Jun 14, 2011
ok
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (19) Jun 14, 2011
It has been known for decades that Earth's climate is closely linked with solar activity.

That empirical fact was an inconvenient truth for Al Gore's story:

See: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun",
Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (17) Jun 14, 2011
Can you stick to the topic - which in this case is very interesting. We have a chance to actually falsify hypotheses that have been put forward in scientific and political realms alike. With the new abilities we have to measure the solar output and the effect on the atmosphere, this is going to be very interesting


EXACTLY!!! This topic is very interesting. When you see headlines that talk of unprecidented this and unprecidented that, this is really something we've never seen before. This is REALLY COOL. This is the biggest headline of the decade, for science stuff anyway (if you are out of work, then this isn't crap).

This is an unexpected and unprecedented event. We didn't even think this was possible. The people in this field are probably running around like crazy people right now. This is thier big chance to do Nobel quality work. This must be REALLY exciting for them. We will all benefit from this opportunity to learn.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2011
Al Gore's AGW has so far been SPOT ON in his predictions! Although it's happening a lot faster! His is a far better theory on GW than anything you have got.

The Science behind GW should scare the pants of any 2 year old.

Every social engineer should do some reading and plan how to avoid the truth.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 15, 2011
@thermodynamics:
My concern is that no matter what we learn there will be groups who hang onto their old ideas. I am one of those who follows the science and I lean toward AGW. However, there are others on this forum who follow the science and lean the other way. I would like nothing better than to be able to falsify one view or the other. ...I fear that it will be falsified either way and the evidence will be ignored.
Judging from your past behavior, I rather doubt that. So far, you've tended to spite any evidence which challenges your world view, and downrank anyone who brings it forward.

What you're essentially claiming here is that you're open-minded. However, being open-minded requires the ability to digest new information without bias. Can you do that?

ubavontuba
3.4 / 5 (18) Jun 15, 2011
@orgon (or whatever you call yourself in the moment):

In my model the key role is played with neutrinos.
What model? Didn't we already establish that you don't really have a "model," haven't even got a valid hypothesis, can make no valid predictions, only assert what's already in fact, and have absolutely nothing to offer? Why are you here?

You're like a fly buzzing around our heads ...annoying, and good for nothing.

thermodynamics
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
ubavontuba: That is an interesting perspective. In my mind (a terrible place to be) I think of myself as arguing the science. When I see someone who has slipped off the edge of the earth like orgon and his idea of the astrologers having the right idea about the changes on earth, I feel we all have a responsibility to let the novice viewers know this is not a common view (and I think a number gave him his deserved 1). In like manner when omatumr chimes in with his view that everything depends on the neutron star in the middle of the sun. What do you propose doing? Make no notice and let those who are trying to learn something think these are acceptable views? In like manner, I have pointed out that the earth is warming (not cooling) to many and have given the references. I have explained how CO2 influences temperature (with references). I answer with the science I know. (cont)
thermodynamics
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
Continued: In fact, I have corrected people on both sides of the argument when I have an understanding of the science. Please keep an eye on me and let me know specifically when you see me diverging from science. As I said, we all are biased and that will show through. Unless you consider yourself above bias. Please pick out a specific instance where I have used bias instead of science.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (16) Jun 15, 2011
Al Gore's AGW has so far been SPOT ON in his predictions! Although it's happening a lot faster! His is a far better theory on GW than anything you have got.


Absolutely not. Please link to an official source confirming any of Gore's predictions from his movie. None of them are true at all, and especially not happening faster than he said. If you can't provide evidence, then you are just a troll. Have a nice day.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2011
When I see someone who has slipped off the edge of the earth like orgon and his idea of the astrologers having the right idea about the changes on earth, I feel we all have a responsibility to let the novice viewers know this is not a common view...
That's a clever (and subtle) strawman. My assertion was in regards to scientific evidence which challenges your world view, not these science fantasies.

In like manner, I have pointed out that the earth is warming (not cooling) to many and have given the references. I have explained how CO2 influences temperature (with references).
Now you're just arguing that you agree with yourself!

Please keep an eye on me and let me know specifically when you see me diverging from science.
First example, above.

Please pick out a specific instance where I have used bias instead of science.
Second example, above.

rawa1
1 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
only assert what's already in fact, and have absolutely nothing to offer?
If I'm only asserting facts, then I don't understand, why you have such a problems with it. But for example the 2012 movie has been "accidentally" labelled as the "most absurd science-fiction movie" ever with NASA - and it seems, it described the mechanism of global warming quite exactly. IMO this labelling wasn't accidental at all and someone in NASA knew about it quite well.. BTW NASA is a strong proponent of AWG.

http://www.physor...wed.html

The above model has a good prediction ability, because path of planets can be predicted exactly, so we can predict the periods of solar activity exactly for future. The motion of Sun switches between two states: chaotic and trefoil shape due the distribution of planets. The periods of chaotic motion are related to global cooling events.

http://www.osel.c...7813.gif
rawa1
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2011
we all have a responsibility to let the novice viewers know this is not a common view
If you didn't notice it already, in solar cycle and global warming physics no common view actually exists for years. Why some people believe, they're approved to judge ideas, which they don't understand at all? It's just the trolls, who are attacking other users without arguments, initiating flamewars and blocking posts on per-peer basis, who have nothing to add to this site.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 15, 2011
rawa1 is another incarnation of ZephyrAWITSBS

orgon is YET ANOTHER incarnation of ZephyAWITBS

Typical attempt by him to pretend to have support.

While he has not upranked himself as rawa1 with his orgon sockpuppet he HAS upranked himself as orgon with the rawa1 sockpuppet.

Which means he still has ALL the bad habits that has made him an infamous pest on the site.

Ethelred
Cin5456
2.9 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2011
this solar minimum (and attendant cooler temps)

This is an nonfactual correlation.

NASA is on record saying that the last decade was the warmest recorded, and that 2005 and 2010 are tied for warmest years. Those warmest years took place during an extended solar min/delayed solar max. The anomalous cooling that started off 2011 is attributed to an extended La Nina in the Pacific, and is not coupled with the advent of the active portion of solar cycle 24 that arrived late in 2008. Cycle 24 finally reached a point where X class flares are active again in March 2011.

If you look at the two sets of data together, you see that the coolest recent winter, 2010-2011, happened at the same time as the solar maximum of March 2011, and that the warmest year, 2005, occurred during the solar min of cycle 23. And the tying warmest year, 2010, happened during a very low solar max.

So, that invalidates the idea that the solar cycle has had a significant effect on GW so far.
(cont)
Cin5456
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2011
continued
Now, an extended solar minimum, lasting decades, would certainly have an accumulative effect on the planet as a whole, but it will probably be realized in global temperatures a couple years after solar cycle 25 maximum doesnt arrive. It is possible we will continue to have progressively warmer years from whatever causes, whether solar or CO2, until the lessening solar influence kicks in.

So dont hold your breaths for your conservative anti-GW theories to be borne out, or for NASAs support of GW theories to be withdrawn. It will take time for it all to pan out one way or another.

BTW, scientists have been tracking the solar cycles since the mid 18th century, not just in the last few decades.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2011
from the original press release:

If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat). No one knows what the Sun will do in that case


That's exciting to me. We're gonna learn new stuff!
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
BTW, scientists have been tracking the solar cycles since the mid 18th century, not just in the last few decades


Actually sun spots have been tracked since way before the mid 18th century. The Maunder minimum, which took place 100 years before that, is well documented, and earlier records than that exist.

However, sun spots aren't the only important aspect of the sun. We have only had the instruments to monitor the magnetic field and corona for a few decades. The zonal flow mentioned above was only discovered recently as well. So, while you are right that people have studied the sun for a long time, the character of that study has improved greatly recently. Heck, the ancient Egyptians and Myans studied the sun. I wouldn't say they understood much about it though.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (14) Jun 15, 2011
Many people are asking me for some predictions of aether theory. Now we can observe, how such theory is working in real time.
Sorry, what did you predict and when did you predict it? Is there some record of this? A prediction is you saying some time in the past that sunspots for instance would unexpectedly disappear, and using your theory to explain why, and then later on this happens, according to your predictions.

Otherwise you've only morphed your fluffy aether to encompass yet another phenomenon. This is what religionists do. You haven't predicted anything.
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1.3 / 5 (16) Jun 15, 2011
looks like even the sun frozez over

when algore lies like a reptlian manbearpig witch he is

beside it snows evrey time its a global warming summit

search for climategate
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 15, 2011
This is pretty much what I've been holding out skepticism regarding AGW for. Going to be a very interesting decade or so for AGW theory...


But didn't you know? The Earth's climate isn't affected by solar output, only by CO2 levels.


what kind of rat iq moron could claim the sun is not affecting
the climate when evry little thing on earth is influenced by the sun

morons like this should be sent to the fema camps and never
see the sun again see how it affects them hm
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 15, 2011
I would guess that ^^ is a bot? Not a very good one though.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2011
what did you predict and when did you predict it?
The prediction for example is, when Sun will interrupt its activity, it will increase the geovolcanic activity and the kilogram prototype will lose its weight. I.e. this connection of these events is a prediction, not the events itself. The periodicity of solar activity can be derived from motion of planets without the need of aether theory (albeit the explanation of this connection is still missing, too). This prediction is documented at many places of the web, if you Google for it.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (14) Jun 15, 2011
to Cin5456:

NASA-JPL has a good page about the effets of the sun on the Earth. The total effects do not coincide with the sunspot cycle. The lack of direct correllation between sunspots and weather isn't a surprise. Here's the link if you want to learn a little more:

http://www.jpl.na...2011-181

here's a quote:

Three things help determine how much energy from the sun is transferred to Earth's magnetosphere from the solar wind: the speed of the solar wind, the strength of the magnetic field outside Earth's bounds (known as the interplanetary magnetic field) and which direction it is pointing


The overall processes are still under intense study. We'll know much more in the next decade, thanks to all the new observatories, such as STEREO, that are giving us our first good look at the sun's other properties.
Cin5456
not rated yet Jun 15, 2011
Thanks for the reference.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2011
Great article. I've been fascinated by coronal holes for years. Any new data is appreciated.

I followed sunspots and coronal holes for about three years, recording data from spaceweather.com every day for that period. No particular reason except fascination.
Cin5456
5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2011
Check out this article on physorg under space exploration.
"Scientists prove existence of 'magnetic ropes' that cause solar storms.
rynox
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
This is pretty much what I've been holding out skepticism regarding AGW for. Going to be a very interesting decade or so for AGW theory...


But didn't you know? The Earth's climate isn't affected by solar output, only by CO2 levels.


This is a false dichotomy. Obviously, the earth's climate could be affected by several factors: Greenhouse gases, ocean acid-ification, solar activity, etc.
emsquared
1.8 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
If you got double ranked at a 1, that might just mean that two of us didn't like the lack of substance in your comments. When you keep using derogatory terms for someone you have never met you have to expect a bit of reaction back.

Like a sock-puppet account to double up 1s? The thing is, if it could be separated out into who ranks people 1, it would be the same group of 10 trolls. And that group of 10 trolls is probably just 5 pathetic people behind their screens.

As for what I say not having substance, you nor any of the 1 rankers can/have demonstrated that. You just slap down the 1 because you're petty.
1/5 rating can provoke wars wasting hours downrating hundreds of comments with dozens of sockpuppets.

As Eddie Vedder once said in song and verse, "if you hate something / don'tchya do it too?". I have a sneaking suspicion Ghost is thermo's (or some other troll who desperately needs to maintain their physorg visage, as it's so linked to their self-esteem) chip.
emsquared
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
I think you used the word derision in a less than appropriate manner.

As for my use of derision, do you know what that means? It means I think all of the people who are here for the right reason should stand up to the trolls, I can't believe all of the many people who actually are intellectuals here don't call out the cowards who just 1 rank everything they don't like, it's laughable. All of the truly smart people here just put up with it, they let the bullies bully, it's ludicrous. And the trolls are here on the internet because it only works on the internet. IRL those same trolls don't have friends if they act like they do on the internet.

The rampant and regular academic cowardice here is disheartening as it often prevents anything of substance from ever getting discussed. It's sad that even an online community like this is dominated by trolls.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
I have a sneaking suspicion Ghost is thermo's


I can guarantee that Thermo is not Otto.

lol, totally off topic, but the company I work for just sent a memo. They are splitting the company into two parts, and they have named the new part (company name here) 2.0. That's hillarious.
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
The lack of direct correlation between sunspots and weather isn't a surprise.
It depends on what you call the "direct corellation". There are literally hundreds of publications about this corellation (Landscheidt, Charvatova) and I'm just explaining, how these two phenomena are related - they share a common origin.

http://www.billho...nges.pdf

NASA is a biased proponent of anthropic global warming, they don't accept any other explanation.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
NASA is a biased proponent of anthropic global warming, they don't accept any other explanation.


Well, NASA-GISS from New York City certainly is as you say. JPL is a lot more reasonable and neutral, and so is Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. But yes, if you want unbiased government sources then you have to look more toward LLNL, NIST, ORNL, and maybe some parts of NOAA like the NCDC believe it or not. The NAS is certianly out of their minds crazy, perhaps worse than GISS. With GISS I know who's to blame, but I can't figure out the NAS thing.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2011
From the article:

"In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed."

If the sun's electromagnetic field creates the solar winds, how will this weakening of the field effect the solar winds and the size and shape of our heliosphere?

A decrease in solar activity should make it easier to shield humans and electronics for space travel.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
to rawa1:

Here's a quote from the reference you gave. They seem to be saying that the data doesn't rule out a relationship, but they aren't saying that they have evidence of a causal relationship.

If steady mutual relations between the SIM and above phenomena are gradually found, then predictive assessments of their future behaviours could be established, first of course on the basis of known previous mutual relations (behaviours). Proper mechanisms are so far not known


Those are his closing comments. It kinda looks like undergrad work to me. It's all old data.
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
A decrease in solar activity should make it easier to shield humans and electronics for space travel.


Yep, that's exactly right. Even at a low there's still the chance of a flare though. It's still unpredictable and dangerous. The odds of people getting to Mars and back without some radiation poisoning is very slim. It would have to be a voluntary decision for whoever goes. Even on the surface of mars it's a harsh place for humans.

Remember two years ago, when they were predicting this current cycle to be a grand maximum, and all our satellites better be ready? Those guys were a little bit off, weren't they?
Cin5456
4 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2011
From the article I was referred to by GSwift7: "Coronal holes are darker, colder areas within the sun's outer atmosphere. Fast solar wind shoots out the center of coronal holes at speeds up to 500 miles per second, but wind flowing out of the sides slows down as it expands into space." And "Those coronal holes lingered at low latitudes to the end of 2008. Consequently, the center of the holes stayed firmly pointed towards Earth, sending fast solar wind in Earth's direction."

I suspect that the absence of sunspots will allow more coronal holes to manifest as occurred during the last solar min. If this occurs then the solar wind will increase, not decrease, because solar wind is generated from coronal holes.
stanfrax
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2011
we have entered mid Feb - and are now in the cycle of what Mayans called novelty time - the planet has till mid oct in earth time for the major change of consciousness - everything is OK
SteveL
5 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2011
stanfrax - You're taking advice from an extinct society? How wise can that be?
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
to Cin5456:

I suspect that the absence of sunspots will allow more coronal holes to manifest


From wiki:

During solar minimum, coronal holes are mainly found at the Sun's polar regions, but they can be located anywhere on the sun during solar maximum.


So, if there are holes durring the predicted minimum, they will not be pointing at us. They don't appear to be directly tied to sun spots in either a positive or inverse way except for the direction they point.

I wonder what effect an extended minimum will have on the bow shock surrounding our solar system?
stanfrax
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2011
i love science - have you seen how these people talk - they really get to the bottom of stuff - i love them all - its mind blowing - sorry for not being wise enough for you o ego great one
orgon
1 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2011
but they aren't saying that they have evidence of a causal relationship.
It's just trolling - general relativity cannot explain too, why the light is spreading with constant speed and/or why the matter curves space-time.

Does it mean, the matter and curvature of space have no causual relationship? If not, then the application of double standards is an indicia of pathological skepticism. In addition, the connection of Maunder minimum to the little ice age is notoriously known. Everyone who doesn't know about it is not qualified to judge climate stuff at all.

http://en.wikiped..._Minimum
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2011
orgon: Please be careful. You said: "...the connection of Maunder minimum to the little ice age is notoriously known." The truth is that the two coincided but it is not clear how they are causally related - if at all.

From the reference you provided at Wikipedia: "Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters has not been proven; however, lower earth temperatures have been observed during low sunspot activity."

Please be careful about who you are considering unqualified if you don't have the relationship right. There is a serious difference between coincidence and causality.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there PROBABLY is a connection, but until that is shown it is not proven, nor is it generally accepted. Skepticism by legitimate scientists is not grounds for you to dismiss them as "pathological." Your term "notorious" might be proven to be correct. :-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2011
The prediction for example is, when Sun will interrupt its activity, it will increase the geovolcanic activity and the kilogram prototype will lose its weight. I.e. this connection of these events is a prediction
And so, when you realized that the sun was interrupting its activity, did you make the prediction that geovolcanic activity would increase and the kg prototype would lose its weight, and was THEN able to observe these come to pass? If not, you are only positing a connection between events which have already happened. This is not prediction.

A prediction would be:

"A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)."

-Now if this predicted rest period does in fact play out then this will have been a successful prediction. See the difference?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2011
we have entered mid Feb - and are now in the cycle of what Mayans called novelty time - the planet has till mid oct in earth time for the major change of consciousness - everything is OK
This sounds like rapturist Harold Campings explanation for the silent armageddon and the real end of days he says is due in October.

Watch out- Camping just had a stroke. Did he subconsciously detect his own frail state and impending demise, and projected it upon the world through his mythic beliefs? His world is indeed about to end.

Is this what youre experiencing perhaps? Time for a checkup maybe?http://www.christ...e-51162/
Cin5456
5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2011
Since we are discussing effects of the sun on the earth, and the JPL article about coronal holes just came out today, I find it interesting that today, on spaceweather.com, near the middle of the page on the left side, the coronal hole report (and photo) shows a coronal hole at low latitudes emerging on the eastern limb of the sun. It looks rather large from this angle, so we may be in for a strong solar wind over the next 5 to 15 days. (Complete transit is 18 days, but we don't get the full effects for the entire time, only when it is pointed at us.) But, we can't see the entire hole yet. It may be linear, not wide enough to generate a strong solar wind, and the hole may close at any time. At least this will be a good time period for checking the aurora borealis.
stanfrax
1 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2011
you know religion has been blown wide open - if your placing a cross upon your soul - entirely your choice the cross is a cancellation sign suffering for man all the words in the book only gives you half the knowledge - all the words being spread have been used to kill our own species - religions don't get on with each other - is this practicing eugenics
frenchie
5 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2011
A decrease in solar activity should make it easier to shield humans and electronics for space travel.


Yep, that's exactly right. Even at a low there's still the chance of a flare though. It's still unpredictable and dangerous. The odds of people getting to Mars and back without some radiation poisoning is very slim. It would have to be a voluntary decision for whoever goes. Even on the surface of mars it's a harsh place for humans.


Just wanted to add and reinforce what you said. Solar radiation within LEO is easily handled (and lessened) by the Van Allen Belts. This allows us engineers to easily shield most electronic components and any vehicle passengers. There is no such protection obviously further out oustide these confines, seriously endangering astronauts health as well as electronics.
ted208
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 15, 2011
A great article and proof positive the debate is not over or the science is far from settled.
Nice to read some intelligent discussion without the idiots that keep screaming Tard this or Tard that, they are strangely absent or silent.
Howhot
2 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2011
Ted-RD, my friend, We never scream, we just tell you the truth, and it's you that screams wishing it wasn't true. Sorry about that.
orgon
1.8 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2011
without the idiots that keep screaming Tard this or Tard that, they are strangely absent or silent
They're still manifesting with their voting status. Every upvote or downvote is actually a subjective voice without any arguments. You can observe, the persons, who don't argue in matter of fact discussions at all are most active as a silent upvoters and downvoters and vice-versa.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2011
Every upvote or downvote is actually a subjective voice without any arguments.
I made mine. You are a sockpuppet and thus deserve ones. Stick to one account and then I won't do that.

The 'tard' remarks are about the Canadian Troll Vendicar Decarian. Who has been banned from quite a few sites. Much like you have only for being a Troll instead of a Crank.

Ethelred
GSwift7
3 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2011
Ted-RD, my friend, We never scream, we just tell you the truth, and it's you that screams wishing it wasn't true. Sorry about that


No you don't. You are never able to back up any of your wild claims with official citations. I invited you to do so several times on the other thread we were debating in. I was able to provide multiple sources to back up my claims, and you have zero. You lie and exagerate constantly, which is why you can't provide any references to disprove my points or to back up yours.

http://www.physor...ghs.html
SteveL
not rated yet Jun 16, 2011
Just wanted to add and reinforce what you said. Solar radiation within LEO is easily handled (and lessened) by the Van Allen Belts. This allows us engineers to easily shield most electronic components and any vehicle passengers. There is no such protection obviously further out oustide these confines, seriously endangering astronauts health as well as electronics.

For shielding do you use Mu-metal, Permalloy, some other material with high magnetic permeability, Faraday cages, Helmholtz coils, a combination, or some other technique?
Cin5456
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2011
Ted-RD, my friend, We never scream, we just tell you the truth, and it's you that screams wishing it wasn't true. Sorry about that


I usually don't participate in threads that don't stick to the subject. Yes, I use my rating to rate down ranting, nonscientific posts and ridiculously politcal claims. It's my right, and I use it. I also rate up those who defend their position with science and references. One thing I can't stand is political posts that are nothing more than vicious attacks on participants. Unfortunately, those usually come from anti-GW rightwingers who have no science, and use name calling to try to prove their point. I'm open to hearing reasoned, scientifically supported opposing views, and those who are willing to wait to see their anti-GW viewpoint vindicated by science, but political news blogs don't count as science. Other reasoned arguments that give no support are rated higher or lower for keeping to the subject. References - please!
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2011
Thks Ted. Nice take about the thread. O.k. I admit. I rated. (Humor, mostly).

This is why otto is now a ghost. But his spirit lives on. My head is bloody, but unbowed etc.


lol
Why do you insist parking in church parking lots to iPod here?
You know they will come out and ask you if you are alright.
(After beating your head bloody)
ldspwr
not rated yet Jun 18, 2011
So should I be scared...? glad? or just indifferent.
hush1
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2011
Do like Otto.
Park.
Elsewhere.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 18, 2011
So should I be scared...? glad? or just indifferent.

Humbled?
AGW ites focused on CO2 because they believe they can control it. Water vapor can't be controlled and neither can solar activity which reminds us humans are not a powerful as we think we are.
TheQuietMan
5 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2011
Looks more like a chance to do good science.

One thing though, if the temperatures go down, and we use that as an excuse to reduce humanities efforts to reduce the impact of global warming, what happens when the sun returns to what we think of as its old ways? Do we find we have inadvertently raisee the average temp of the earth several degrees? Heck of a way to find out if we were wrong.

I think most people will concede that it isn't as simple as some would claim, but what goes down can come back up again.
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 18, 2011
This is highly unusual and unexpected, Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSOs Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.


Periods of solar hibernation are neither "unusual nor unexpected to those who seriously studied natural changes in Earth's climate before global climate became a political issue.

See "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun" [Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)] and earlier papers cited there.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

It is neither
Tenche
4 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2011

rawa1:

You are totally wrong. At least use google before you throw out some stupid crap. Previous periods of low solar activity are associated with cool periods on Earth. The Maunder minimum coincides with the little ice age, and the Sporer minimum also coincides with a cool period. Which 'could' mean that we'll see a return of glaciers and polar ice. Should be interesting to find out over the next couple decades if that's true or not. Only time will tell.


Concur.
Cin5456
4.4 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2011
Oliver,
I hate it when you reference yourself. I noticed that the paper said it was pending publication way back in 2009. I'm assuming it was never published or it would have a reference for that. You are pandering to your own ego, and it's not very pretty.
mosahlah
2.1 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2011
This is what I call a convenient excuse for when AGW runs out of plausibility, and the crowd pushing the hype gets called to the carpet.
Thadieus
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2011
It's going to be a great ski season!!!!
astro_optics
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2011
Burn baby Burn...we need more CO2 urgently...
MarkyMark
5 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2011
This is highly unusual and unexpected, Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSOs Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.


Periods of solar hibernation are neither "unusual nor unexpected to those who seriously studied natural changes in Earth's climate before global climate became a political issue.

See "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun" [Energy and Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)] and earlier papers cited there.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

It is neither

Lol took you a while to come here to spout your 'belief' that the sun is a big ball of iron, or whatever nonsense you spout! Why dont you go back to NASA and try and educate them?
rawa1
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2011
Previous periods of low solar activity are associated with cool periods on Earth. The Maunder minimum coincides with the little ice age, and the Sporer minimum also coincides with a cool period.
I didn't impeach it - I even explained, how it probably works instead. But I consider it as a rather schematic view in context of these graphs, for example

http://img638.ima...der2.jpg

http://www.ashevi...e009.jpg

The question basically is, if the period of low solar activity was long enough with compare to Maunder minimum (regarding the sun spot count, the Sporer minimum wasn't analyzed at all, because we lived in caves that time). In my opinion it wasn't and the Sun is quite active by now, again. Even the periodicity of these minimum doesn't fit the last minimum. IMO physicists are too fast with their extrapolations.
stanfrax
not rated yet Jul 08, 2011
https://fbcdn-pho...70_s.jpg - i cant verify how accurate this is