What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening

[summit daWg]

From another forum


What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth - far from facing a global warming problem - is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

This could have major implications for the Earth's climate.



Read the full story at the register.co.uk

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/20...#ixzz1PJRuUVa8

[The Rev]

Good it's been too freaking hot anyway!...

It's all in God's hands and plan, outside of that I really don't care if it all ceases tomorrows.

[Champlain Islander]

Originally Posted by summit daWg

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, that the Earth - far from facing a global warming problem - is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.

I love it....a longer ice fishing season for me. What's not to like.

[Alsatian]

This is being related to the Maunder Minimum, a historic cycle of low sunspot activity that lasted about 75 years from about 1650 to 1725 (look up to get exact dates -- these dates are only from my memory). Of interest is that this coincided with a very cool period -- a 75 year period of low temperatures.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) priests to recant, however. My guess is that they will take this as some further proof of their theory. How? Well, how about making some hypothetical mathematical equation that purports to adadpt out the influence of a sun spot minimum -- for example a leading edge of this cycle -- overlay this function on the global temperature data of the last 20 years, and conclude "OMG!!! The sky is falling! If it weren't for the onset of a Maunder Minimum all the ice caps would be melted and we would be sizzling in our own rendered grease!!!" Can't happen? Wait and see.

To me this is further evidence supporting my position on AGW. Climate science is immature. There are many mechanisms that drive climate that we do not understand. We cannot explain known climate change in the historic past; how can we presume to predict future climate? There is no reliable quantification in climate science, hence no real science yet. I praise efforts to refine, extend, evolve, and improve our scientific understanding of climate, but it isn't at a point yet to use in driving public policy.

Some would propose a "better safe than sorry" stance. What is always missing from this proposal is any realistic and quantitative assessment of the costs of the "safe" alternative. What is the cost in drag on the economy? What is the cost in reduced standard of living for our children and grandchildren? What is the cost in reduction of providing communal services -- public education, public highways, etc? This "better safe than sorry" proposition almost invariably pretends that there is no downside to taking aggressive action to curtail emission of greenhouse gases. That is not very prudent. The consequences of SIGNIFICANT curtailment of greenhouse gas emission are far from negligible.

[Alsatian]

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander

I love it....a longer ice fishing season for me. What's not to like.

I have lived in North Texas since 1996. During that interval I saw a summer with 45 days over 100 degrees. It is not unusual in summer to see the temperature exceed 105 degrees. If the temperature is about 10 degrees cooler on average for an extended period of time . . . baby I'm for that!

At the same time, such a 10 degree temperature swing (and I'm pulling this absolutely out of the air, I don't know what the temperature delta would be, maybe more likely on the order of 5 degrees) would have very significant consequences on many things -- agriculture for one. It could have an influence on freezing and bursting of pipes in winter. I don't mean to be unsympathetic to those who would suffer the downside of such a climate change.

[ipscshooter]

I think it would be a big plus for those of us residing in the Lone Star State. I look forward to the lower A/C bills...

[Terasec]

Originally Posted by Champlain Islander

I love it....a longer ice fishing season for me. What's not to like.

too soon to upgrade from manual auger to power auger?

[Lemaitre]

There are a couple of things to keep in mind if this story is accurate. The decline in sunspot activity from 1645 to 1710 was documented reasonably well but it had only been 1610 when the existence of sunspots were first noted by Galileo and the telescopes of the time were very crude by today's standards. More importantly, while there are records of sunspot activity from the time of the Maunder Minimum, there are no records of solar luminosity which is what would determine how much radiant energy the Earth is receiving from the Sun. The luminosity of the Sun is currently well known and is about 4x10^26 watts which at the distance of the Earth from the Sun works out to about 1,370 watts per square meter.

The Sun produces energy by fusing hydrogen into helium in its core and it takes a very long time for this energy to traverse the 7x10^8 meter radius of the Sun and reach the surface to radiate into space. The photons that we are receiving today from the Sun are actually the result of fusion reactions that took place in the core of the Sun millions of years ago. The luminosity of the Sun is gradually increasing in accordance with the Virial Theorem as helium builds up in the core. The Sun is about 25% more luminous now than it was when it first formed 4.6 billion years ago.

Sunspots are a surface phenomenon of the Sun caused by changes in its magnetic field. They only appear dark because at 4,000K they are cooler than the surrounding surface of the Sun which is about 5,800K. When we talk about Solar activity we are discussing the frequency of sunspots and solar flares which are a manifestation of the Sun's magnetic field. It is unclear if there is any relationship between activity occurring now on the surface of the Sun and the rate of fusion reactions that took place in the core of the Sun millions of years ago which determines its present luminosity.

[bugsNbows]

This is terrible news...Owl Gore may go off the deep end.

[Howler]

Owl Gore may go off the deep end.

I don't see anything wrong with that, matter of fact, ....I'd almost pay to see it..