Sun Spots

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Fat Tony
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC

Sun Spots

Postby Fat Tony » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:47 pm UTC

A little old, but I couldn't find it here.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
I initially heard this on the radio; I believe it was Sean Hannidy.
Anyways, it sounds pretty reasonable to me. Anyone heard of this before?
Wanna hear the truth? Life is downright ok.

User avatar
ascendingPig
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:14 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Sun Spots

Postby ascendingPig » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:31 pm UTC

I've heard it, but it's BS.

If it were solar cycles, the temperature above the Earth's atmosphere would be increasing just like the temperature within. It's not. It's actually been going down while the temperature of the Earth has skyrocketed.
"Many facts can fill an empty head."
-- Karl Kraus

User avatar
The Spherical Cow
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:10 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Sun Spots

Postby The Spherical Cow » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:01 am UTC

ascendingPig wrote:I've heard it, but it's BS.

If it were solar cycles, the temperature above the Earth's atmosphere would be increasing just like the temperature within. It's not. It's actually been going down while the temperature of the Earth has skyrocketed.

Not meaning to sound like an arse, but can you direct me to some links about this? I'd be interested to see, as it's not an argument I've encountered with regards to the sun-spot theory before.

User avatar
ascendingPig
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:14 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Sun Spots

Postby ascendingPig » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:17 am UTC

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/1

Somewhere near the beginning, he shows some pretty graphs. (Not exactly unbiased, I know, but sue me, it's legit.)

Watch the whole thing. It's good, though some of the statistics (like when he compares the US's energy use to that of much less populous nations) do feel manipulated.
"Many facts can fill an empty head."
-- Karl Kraus

User avatar
The Spherical Cow
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:10 pm UTC
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Sun Spots

Postby The Spherical Cow » Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:23 am UTC

Cheers, I'll check it out sometime tomorrow - as I should probably get some sleep now.

(Incidentally, I've enjoyed quite a few of those TED talks, hopefully this one keeps it up.)

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Sun Spots

Postby Garm » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:46 am UTC

Simple answer: No.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html

More robust answer: Whatever effect the sun's output may have on the earth's warming, the sun spots do not considerably change that output. Their overall change to the luminosity of the sun is negligible and the increased output of non-visible particles makes for a more beautiful Aurora Borealis cuz more particles are hitting the earth's magnetic field. And honestly, the increase in particle output is pretty tiny.

Edit: I don't mean to say that the sun's light has no effect on global warming, in fact, that's the problem, the CO2 is trapping all the heat that we get from the sun. Rereading the article Fat Tony posted, they make it sound at the end like the sun's about to burn out like a cheap light bulb, wtf.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Fat Tony
Posts: 1501
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:12 pm UTC

Re: Sun Spots

Postby Fat Tony » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:40 am UTC

Not that it's going to burn out, but that it's going to weaken slightly in the near future.
Wanna hear the truth? Life is downright ok.

User avatar
Weaver
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:43 am UTC
Location: Ft Drum (for now)

Re: Sun Spots

Postby Weaver » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:44 pm UTC

Jeez, that article is so full of holes, I almost don't know where to start.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.


This is simply false. We are continuing to see the final sunspots of the last solar cycle, and have observed the initial, high-latitude sunspots of the new cycle.

Much REAL data available here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.
Yes, IF the Sun were quiet for a year or two, that could signal something - but there's absolutely nothing at all to indicate that is likely to happen.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.
This is very, very relevant, I think.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."
Right, because past changes were not caused by non-natural sources injecting large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere - so past activity doesn't show a direct correlation with current trends. That strengthens the arguement that the current, abnormal trend is anthropogenic in origin.

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.
History has shown that Abdusamatov was wrong.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.
Not surprising, given their ties to the large energy companies, and their prediliction for pushing climate-denial theories regardless of actual fact.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=43

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.
He is an intelligence expert, and has absolutely no background in climatology. I'll seek his opinion on climate change when he seeks my opinion on business opportunities for entrepeneurial venture capitalists in lower Sudan.
http://www.hoover.org/bios/berkowitz.html


The article is old. The information is mostly false, with just enough out-of-context to give it the slight air of plausability. It should not be taken as a valid challange to current climate change theory.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PM 2Ring and 14 guests