PDA

View Full Version : Goremonism gored by science!



LWW
06-15-2011, 04:26 AM
Fear not however, as there is no reason to believe that the naive who bought into man made global warming will not buy into man made global cooling, just as they did in the 1970's.

Even in this piece we have those attempting to downplay the obvious by claiming these findings were unexpected.

The reality is that sunspot activity overlays with near perfection on a graph of Earthly temperature changes ... and for as far back as science allows us to peak.

So ... the output of the Sun might actually have more of an impact on temperature changes than a HUMMER's exhaust?

Whoodathunkitt?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

"The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14).

The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun's visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles. [Photos: Sunspots on Earth's Star]

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," Hill said. "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."

Sunspots are temporary patches on the surface of the sun that are caused by intense magnetic activity. These structures sometimes erupt into energetic solar storms that send streams of charged particles into space.

Since powerful charged particles from solar storms can occasionally wreak havoc on Earth's magnetic field by knocking out power grids or disrupting satellites in orbit, a calmer solar cycle could have its advantages.

Astronomers study mysterious sunspots because their number and frequency act as indicators of the sun's activity, which ebbs and flows in an 11-year cycle. Typically, a cycle takes roughly 5.5 years to move from a solar minimum, when there are few sunspots, to the solar maximum, during which sunspot activity is amplified.

Currently, the sun is in the midst of the period designated as Cycle 24 and is ramping up toward the cycle's period of maximum activity. However, the recent findings indicate that the activity in the next 11-year solar cycle, Cycle 25, could be greatly reduced. In fact, some scientists are questioning whether this drop in activity could lead to a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period from 1645 to 1715 when the sun showed virtually no sunspots. [Video: Rivers of Fire Inflame Sunspots]

Hill is the lead author of one of the studies that used data from the Global Oscillation Network Group to look at characteristics of the solar interior. (The group includes six observing stations around the world.) The astronomers examined an east-west zonal wind flow inside the sun, called torsional oscillation. The latitude of this jet stream matches the new sunspot formation in each cycle, and models successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

"We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it," Hill said. "The flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009. This leads us to believe that the next cycle will be very much delayed, with a minimum longer than the one we just went through."

Hill estimated that the start of Cycle 25 could be delayed to 2021 or 2022 and will be very weak, if it even happens at all.

The sun's magnetic field

In the second study, researchers tracked a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by the next solar cycle, magnetic fields erupting on the sun will be so weak that few, if any, sunspots will be formed.

With more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Matt Penn and William Livingston observed that the average magnetic field strength declined significantly during Cycle 23 and now into Cycle 24. Consequently, sunspot temperatures have risen, they observed.

If the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field strength will drop below a certain threshold and sunspots will largely disappear; the field no longer will be strong enough to overcome such convective forces on the solar surface.

In a separate study, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force's coronal research program at NSO's facility in New Mexico, examined the sun's corona and observed a slowdown of the magnetic activity's usual "rush to the poles."

"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 said. "Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the sun."

Altrock sifted through 40 years of observations from NSO's 16-inch (40 centimeters) coronagraphic telescope.

New solar activity typically emerges at a latitude of about 70 degrees at the start of the solar cycle, then moves toward the equator. The new magnetic field simultaneously pushes remnants of the past cycle as far as 85 degrees toward the poles. The current cycle, however, is showing some different behavior.

"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," Altrock said. "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. No one knows what the sun will do in that case."

If the models prove accurate and the trends continue, the implications could be far-reaching.

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate." </div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html)

Soflasnapper
06-15-2011, 05:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The reality is that sunspot activity overlays with near perfection on a graph of Earthly temperature changes ... and for as far back as science allows us to peak.

So ... the output of the Sun might actually have more of an impact on temperature changes than a HUMMER's exhaust?</div></div>

That was what was so alarming about 2010. A very hot year, top 2 or 3, during a period of sunspot quiescence.

And sorry, but the sun's output as a factor in GW has been examined thoroughly upon the suggestion that it was in fact to blame, and it has been shown NOT to be the factor.

LWW
06-16-2011, 03:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And sorry, but the sun's output as a factor in GW has been examined thoroughly upon the suggestion that it was in fact to blame, and it has been shown NOT to be the factor. </div></div>

I didn't think anyone was that brainwashed.

Care to document that?

What's that?

You can't?

I know.

Qtec
06-16-2011, 05:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And sorry, but the sun's output as a factor in GW has been examined thoroughly upon the suggestion that it was in fact to blame, and it has been shown NOT to be the factor. </div></div>

I didn't think anyone was that brainwashed.

Care to document that?

What's that?

You can't?

I know. </div></div>


Brain Dead.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the sun causing global warming?
Posted on 18 August 2010 by John Russell

This post is the Basic version (written by John Russell) of the skeptic argument "It's the sun".

Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.</span> </div></div>

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

Hear that noise? That was your head exploding. No damage done tho.

Q

Stretch
06-16-2011, 05:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And sorry, but the sun's output as a factor in GW has been examined thoroughly upon the suggestion that it was in fact to blame, and it has been shown NOT to be the factor. </div></div>

I didn't think anyone was that brainwashed.

Care to document that?

What's that?

You can't?

I know. </div></div>


Brain Dead.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is the sun causing global warming?
Posted on 18 August 2010 by John Russell

This post is the Basic version (written by John Russell) of the skeptic argument "It's the sun".

Until about 1960, measurements by scientists showed that the brightness and warmth of the sun, as seen from the Earth, was increasing. Over the same period temperature measurements of the air and sea showed that the Earth was gradually warming. It was not surprising therefore for most scientists to put two and two together and assume that it was the warming sun that was increasing the temperature of our planet.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>However, between the 1960s and the present day the same solar measurements have shown that the energy from the sun is now decreasing. At the same time temperature measurements of the air and sea have shown that the Earth has continued to become warmer and warmer. This proves that it cannot be the sun; something else must be causing the Earth's temperature to rise.</span> </div></div>

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

Hear that noise? That was your head exploding. No damage done tho.

Q </div></div>

On the other hand, all the hot air comeing from the Republicans could be a factor. St.

LWW
06-16-2011, 06:07 AM
That's funny.

Soflasnapper
06-16-2011, 09:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I didn't think anyone was that brainwashed.
</div></div>

You appear to be unaware of so many things, and then you insist that if you haven't heard of it, the other person is brainwashed, brain-dead, believing in propaganda, or something.

This habit makes you seem churlish. Are you a little churl?

LWW
06-16-2011, 04:20 PM
You don't even understand why it;s funny.

Soflasnapper
06-17-2011, 10:01 AM
Stretch's comment was funny, I agree.