'Quiet Sun' baffling astronomers

[Apech]

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

BBC - Quiet sun baffling astronomers

 

 

Its says:

 

The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.

 

Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.

 

Interesting that we have the worst global recession for 50 years and that economically and politically we seem to be in a period of dramatic change - and presumably social change too.

Edited April 24, 2009 by apepch7

[Mokona]

that is interesting. its is one of those things that make yah wonder.

[Aetherous]

It's interesting...but the problem with science like this is that it's so young. The same thing can be said about the global warming issue. We look at data from the past 100 and maybe 200 years and think we've discovered something earth shattering when we see that there's a minor glitch which doesn't fit into the tiny pattern we've perceived.

 

But I'm glad that the astronomers are baffled. We all should be, because the universe is constantly reminding us: "You don't know the half of it!"

[Taoist81]

It's interesting...but the problem with science like this is that it's so young. The same thing can be said about the global warming issue. We look at data from the past 100 and maybe 200 years and think we've discovered something earth shattering when we see that there's a minor glitch which doesn't fit into the tiny pattern we've perceived.

 

But I'm glad that the astronomers are baffled. We all should be, because the universe is constantly reminding us: "You don't know the half of it!"

 

While it is true that we "don't know the half of it", climatologists do not just study data "from the past 100 and maybe 200 years". There are records in various forms dating back many millions of years that reflect what temperatures were. Interestingly the data all reflects the cyclic nature that all of the deepest mystic traditions have acknowledged. But the past hundred or so years worth of data shows a spike (only the size of the spike is debatable) when compared with the past. This likewise reflects Lao Tzu's comment "would you conquer the universe and try to improve it. I do not believe it can be done. If you try to improve it you will ruin it." (paraphrased from memory)

[Aetherous]

There are records in various forms dating back many millions of years that reflect what temperatures were.

 

Like what?

[Taiji Bum]

Like what?

Tree rings that go back centuries and ice core samples that go waaaaaaaaay back.

[topflight]

If you want to learn more about this subject, then get the book "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years".

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-W...d/dp/0742551245

[joeblast]

While it is true that we "don't know the half of it", climatologists do not just study data "from the past 100 and maybe 200 years". There are records in various forms dating back many millions of years that reflect what temperatures were. Interestingly the data all reflects the cyclic nature that all of the deepest mystic traditions have acknowledged. But the past hundred or so years worth of data shows a spike (only the size of the spike is debatable) when compared with the past. This likewise reflects Lao Tzu's comment "would you conquer the universe and try to improve it. I do not believe it can be done. If you try to improve it you will ruin it." (paraphrased from memory)

The past hundred years comment has a very narrow range of applicability, it shouldnt be haphazardly tossed about when discussing things of a much broader applicability. So which 'spike' are you referring to?

 

And are we still on topic with the sun here, or did our climate silently get dragged into this?

 

Some people have been watching too much TV. Others blindly jump on a bandwagon that supports what they're predisposed to believe, and others are pushing an agenda based on bad science, weak statistics, poor math, and a very strong desire to be correct and collect their project funding even in the face of contradictory data.

 

Keep an eye on new developments, because we keep seeing all those models that make these ridiculous claims have their datasets diverge more and more from reality. Mr Hansen cant even predict so much as an el nino or a sunspot cycle for cryin out loud. That asswipe told me in email conversations I had with him a couple years ago that the sun didnt have quite so much of an impact and that his models clearly showed that human effects have become far more dominant!!!! That is just laughable. Utterly laughable. If it werent so freakin sad.

 

This war on CO2 is absolutely ridiculous and utterly false - why do you think the cries to "do something about it" are growing more shrill by the day? If they dont pass legislation soon, then enough people are going to find out the truth of the matter, and get ready to hang all the greedy bastards that are promoting the cap and trade farce.

 

Aside from proposed spending of trillions to achieve little to no perceivable effect, this is absolutely just a distraction from true environmental concerns.

[Apech]

I think the 'quiet sun' and the timescales quoted (50,55 and 100 years) could demonstrate that events on earth (even those which are dependent on human activity like the stock market prices) resonate with cosmic cycles and events. It could show that we are not as clever as we think we are - and thus give us a bit more humility (perhaps). The sun in ancient times was viewed as a great soul - that is an intelligence which, like a king, ruled the solar system. If we see nature as 'intelligent' in this way then the natural cycles it follows have a purpose. We don't have to be like baffled astronomers we can intuit what the sun is telling us. Be quiet, be calm, let change happen and then after begin to grow again (my suggestion).

[Sloppy Zhang]

Like what?

 

 

The past hundred years comment has a very narrow range of applicability, it shouldnt be haphazardly tossed about when discussing things of a much broader applicability. So which 'spike' are you referring to?

 

And are we still on topic with the sun here, or did our climate silently get dragged into this?

 

Well, on the topic of the climate, scientists have methods for measuring CO2 levels going WAAAAAAY back. There is CO2 trapped in the ice at the polar caps in layers, and you can cut out layers in the ice and see levels of CO2 from pretty much ever since the ice got there.

 

So, the "spike", is a HUGE spike that hasn't been seen EVER. Period. Well, at least not since the ice at the bottom of the ice caps, which has been there for, well, a lot longer than just a couple hundred years.

 

It's not a bandwagon. It is a proven scientific FACT that has been reviewed over and over and over again.

 

Now for the sun, our methods of understanding the sun's history are not as extensive, seeing as how the sun is a lot further away than the ice caps. But as technology increases we will probably learn ways to understand our sun better. Also, we can look to other solar systems that have stars similar to ours. In our universe we have "older and younger brothers" as it were all over the place. We can see how stars birth, grow, and die, we can figure out where our star is, what it's doing, and what we can expect.

 

Global warming at first was considered a myth or a bandwagon, then science was able to make a more firm statement. I'm sure this "quiet sun" thing will go the same way: all kinds of rumors surrounding it until the science can come to a more informed conclusion.

[Wayfarer64]

Just take a look at the thickness of atmosphere that covers the Earth. Seen from space it seems very thin and delicate to my eyes... Why wouldn't we value its' preservation? why wouldn't we protect it as best we can?

 

What could be more important than understanding how we have changed this thin and delicate environment that offers us LIFE?

 

If the sun changes much at all or our magnetic poles shift in a way that allows the suns' energy to blast our atmosphere away, then where will we be?

 

Only sub-mariners will last through that sort of thing...

 

A little knowledge may indeed be dangerous... but ignorance is never bliss! We just can not ignore these issues...

 

love to all- Pat

Edited April 24, 2009 by Wayfarer64

[joeblast]

Well, on the topic of the climate, scientists have methods for measuring CO2 levels going WAAAAAAY back. There is CO2 trapped in the ice at the polar caps in layers, and you can cut out layers in the ice and see levels of CO2 from pretty much ever since the ice got there.

 

So, the "spike", is a HUGE spike that hasn't been seen EVER. Period. Well, at least not since the ice at the bottom of the ice caps, which has been there for, well, a lot longer than just a couple hundred years.

 

It's not a bandwagon. It is a proven scientific FACT that has been reviewed over and over and over again.

 

Now for the sun, our methods of understanding the sun's history are not as extensive, seeing as how the sun is a lot further away than the ice caps. But as technology increases we will probably learn ways to understand our sun better. Also, we can look to other solar systems that have stars similar to ours. In our universe we have "older and younger brothers" as it were all over the place. We can see how stars birth, grow, and die, we can figure out where our star is, what it's doing, and what we can expect.

 

Global warming at first was considered a myth or a bandwagon, then science was able to make a more firm statement. I'm sure this "quiet sun" thing will go the same way: all kinds of rumors surrounding it until the science can come to a more informed conclusion.

Where are you getting your data from? 1, there's been plenty of times in earth's history where the ppm of CO2 has been higher - much higher than it is now - and yes, times when the earth has been flourishing with life. 2, this "spike" is well within normal variability.

 

The issue here is the HUGE amount of credence given to woefully incomplete and inadequate climate models and not only that, but they are giving extra significant and contrived weight to CO2 in order for the models to give the impression that they are reflective of reality. So basically part of that 'issue' is that this fact you are pointing out has little relevance in and of itself. Did you know that CO2's effects on the climate are on a logarithmic rather than a linear scale? Yep, with less CO2 in the air, each ppm has a larger impact on warming than if there were hundreds more ppm in the air. Another one of those inconvenient little facts that chicken little looks over because it doesnt support his foregone conclusion

 

Science still has not been able to make 'firm' statements on our climate. "Settled" and "consensus" are two words you can just about never use when realistically discussing scientific matters.

[Taoist81]

Tree rings that go back centuries and ice core samples that go waaaaaaaaay back.

 

Exactly.

[Yoda]

I've written a song about it:

 

Quiet sun

Wont you come

And wash away the rain

Quiet sun

Wont you come

Wont you come

 

[Taoist81]

The past hundred years comment has a very narrow range of applicability, it shouldnt be haphazardly tossed about when discussing things of a much broader applicability. So which 'spike' are you referring to?

"Spike" was, perhaps, a poor term to use what with the now disproven "hockey stick" being commonly associated with it. Rather, "distinct increase" seems more properly descriptive.

 

And are we still on topic with the sun here, or did our climate silently get dragged into this?

 

The only reason Climate Change was mentioned was in response to the claim that scientists are only working with a couple hundred years worth of information, an all to common misconception. The two are somewhat related, but the intent was not to derail the discussion.

 

Some people have been watching too much TV. Others blindly jump on a bandwagon that supports what they're predisposed to believe, and others are pushing an agenda based on bad science, weak statistics, poor math, and a very strong desire to be correct and collect their project funding even in the face of contradictory data.

 

Keep an eye on new developments, because we keep seeing all those models that make these ridiculous claims have their datasets diverge more and more from reality. Mr Hansen cant even predict so much as an el nino or a sunspot cycle for cryin out loud. That asswipe told me in email conversations I had with him a couple years ago that the sun didnt have quite so much of an impact and that his models clearly showed that human effects have become far more dominant!!!! That is just laughable. Utterly laughable. If it werent so freakin sad.

 

This war on CO2 is absolutely ridiculous and utterly false - why do you think the cries to "do something about it" are growing more shrill by the day? If they dont pass legislation soon, then enough people are going to find out the truth of the matter, and get ready to hang all the greedy bastards that are promoting the cap and trade farce.

 

Aside from proposed spending of trillions to achieve little to no perceivable effect, this is absolutely just a distraction from true environmental concerns.

 

Climatology and meteorology are not the same sciences. The are related, but not identical. The "war on CO2" is being blown out of proportion, but it is not "utterly false". The simple fact that our oceans absorb a massive amount of it and the related effects is reason for concern, but the way politics and both sides of the media have mangled the truth, very few people get to any unbiased fact. Spending trillions on a misunderstood idea is certainly not a good thing, but curbing emissions isn't. Just for the more breathable air it would be nice. Still, more regulation is seldom a good answer, more education often is.

[zanshin]

Even Mother Earth might have a dark side.

 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/ar.../11/dark_green/

[Machin Shin]

Even Mother Earth might have a dark side.

 

 

I liked the history of the planet being presented. The snowball periods of evolution are fascinating.

Calling upon Medea for inspiration is very bold, it would naturally follow that Medea is contrasted to Gaia.

The comparison of a woman to a titan is an extreme use of imagery calling upon the minds ability to put together different scales of understanding reality. Quite stimulating!

 

But back to the science, the fact that life on this planet has gone into extinction on a global scale before mankind's interference brings a new light to my understanding of truth. To quote Ward "The main threat to life is life itself."

 

Unfortunatly the article ends with geoengineering. Essentially suggesting that humanity start developing the science for transforming Venus and Mars here on earth. This brings to mind a project that attempts to stop glacial melt by covering the icecaps in plastic. The researcher only managed to cover a square acre and his results showed that the ice does stop melting. But there is a solid square acre of plastic littering the arctic ice.

 

Hum...finding harmony with nature is not quite, quite what it seems to be.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Machin Shin

[Owledge]

Even Mother Earth might have a dark side.

 

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/ar.../11/dark_green/

Have read the first page. It is so bad on so many aspects. Plants' appetite caused the ice ages?!? Earth's thermometer only consisting of CO2?!?

 

This looks like one of so many examples of a 'scientist' trying to sell a book by using a new thesis that is optimized at gaining attention by being against existing views. Quality of the thesis is not that important. A guy can write a book about complete bullshit; As long as it is unsettling, it will sell books.

 

Maybe I should have read the other 4 pages, but is it just that guy's view and a philosophy or are there convincing facts?

 

 

Oh and the BBC article is nearly worthless in my opinion: Too politically influenced and biased. We know nothing.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Hardyg

[Apech]

I've written a song about it:

 

Quiet sun

Wont you come

And wash away the rain

Quiet sun

Wont you come

Wont you come

 

 

 

I love it - what's the tune?

 

CO2

Won't you come

To heat up every day

CO2

Won't you come

Won't you come

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and the BBC article is nearly worthless in my opinion: Too politically influenced and biased. We know nothing.

 

 

I kinda thought the BBC article was just facts about sun spots and so on ?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Where are you getting your data from?

 

I took a little something called a science class when I was in high school.... I also took an astronomy class this semester, and the professor had made his own presentation on the climate change. He's not a climatologist, but seeing as how there is weather on other planets as well, he's pretty familiar with some certain principles, as well as general chemistry, how things work when they are in the atmosphere, green house effects, etc. Sufficed to say, I trust him and his research over some random people on the internet.

 

I don't know how old you are, so I don't know when the last time you were in school. Given that global warming has gotten a lot of attention recently, it's been sort of a big deal, so people have put a lot more effort into gathering data. So.... yeah, the spike/high point/whatever you want to call it is SIGNIFICANT. Like, I wish I had a good graph of it, but it's pretty shocking. "Off the charts" barely does it any justice because it is.... well, off the charts.

 

1, there's been plenty of times in earth's history where the ppm of CO2 has been higher - much higher than it is now - and yes, times when the earth has been flourishing with life. 2, this "spike" is well within normal variability.

 

Not from what I've seen. And again, I trust the distinguished scientists and professors that I've taken classes with, that I've had discussions with, and whose research I have seen first hand over yours. Sorry.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[seadog]

I always suspected the sun was up to no good.

Thanks Apepch 7 now I have proof!

And a another thing if there is global warming,why aren't we blaming the sun.

I mean if my kitchen gets to hot I don't blame the cutlery,I blame the oven.

Yeah its the sun.

[Apech]

I always suspected the sun was up to no good.

Thanks Apepch 7 now I have proof!

And a another thing if there is global warming,why aren't we blaming the sun.

I mean if my kitchen gets to hot I don't blame the cutlery,I blame the oven.

Yeah its the sun.

 

 

Ummmm I hate to point out the obvious but the sun is being QUIET i.e. at its most inactive for 100 years - so its not making us warmer at the moment.

 

(Mind you I guess its up to no good - hanging around with its big yellow face on - who does it think it is? huh!)

Edited April 24, 2009 by apepch7

[松永道]

Where are you getting your data from? 1, there's been plenty of times in earth's history where the ppm of CO2 has been higher - much higher than it is now - and yes, times when the earth has been flourishing with life. 2, this "spike" is well within normal variability.

 

In the past when CO2 levels were higher, life was certainly flourishing. Of course, that was life adapted to living in those conditions. Was it intelligent? Was it like us? Could we live under those conditions?

 

Yea lets wait and see.. if the cancer kills us quickly or slowly.

[Owledge]

Ummmm I hate to point out the obvious but the sun is being QUIET i.e. at its most inactive for 100 years - so its not making us warmer at the moment.

A year ago or so it was found out (and the climate zealots didn't object) that due to the sun's decrease in activity, global warming came to a halt, which will last for estimated ten years. The liar-scientists said that this would not stop global warming, but just 'mask' it, by counteracting CO2' influence. Hm, so the sun is a veeeery tiny influence compared to CO2, but now they admit the opposite ... that the sun rules and CO2 can only work under its pre-set conditions, so to speak. The best thing you could deduct from that is that the same intensity variation of the sun causes more change now than it did in the past, but that would then only create bigger fluctuation, wouldn't it?

 

By the way... The acidification of the sea due to higher CO2 absorption by the water due to a higher CO2 concentration in the air is another claim of the climate zealots that contradicts the claim of other climate zealots of warming water releasing CO2 due to decreased capacity to absorb it. But both claim their theory to be true and the media accepts both as true, as if no contradiction was there. They are simply always right. This whole idea shares several typical similarities with religion.

[Gerard]

2009 = Year of the Ox = Yin.

 

This year is when Yin energy reaches its peak. The interesting thing is that Yin energy is dominant in three years in a row: Pig, Rat and Ox.

 

2009 is a very Yin year and it can be felt easily. Colder than average and increased rainfall when you observe the natural environment.

Edited April 25, 2009 by durkhrod chogori