MGB: Sun spots

I read a report in the paper today about the recording of Sun spots and that they have had a record period of no sun spots and indicate from historical records that we could be heading into the next ice age.

I am not well versed on the subject and only have the postition that man does not have much to do with Global warming.

I recall a previous post where a bunch of you who something and from all sides had opinions. What about this report.

6863m Wrote:

Quote: "
I read a report in the paper today about the recording of Sun spots and that they have had a record period of no sun spots and indicate from historical records that we could be heading into the next ice age.
I am not well versed on the subject and only have the postition that man does not have much to do with Global warming.
I recall a previous post where a bunch of you who something and from all sides had opinions. What about this report.
"

Funny ice age we've started - most of the northern ice cap has melted and the southern one isn't in good health...

Whatever it means, I'm sure it's Bush's fault....

6863m Wrote:

This undoubtedly goes back to what scientists refer to as the "Maunder Minimum."

The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It is named after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851�1928) who discovered the dearth of sunspots during that period by studying records from those years. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000�50,000 spots.

The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle � and coldest part � of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate.

(BTW, most of this is from wikipedia.)

Someone, quick, call Al Gore. Maybe he can start peddling sun spot debit cards to help offset the lack of sun spots. We better act fast, as this is clearly a tipping point and we may lose sun spots forever.

Speaking of Al Gore, does anyone else have a suspicion he is really, really disappointed that Gustav didn't make Cat 5 and wipe out 1/2 of a state? Didn't he preach that global warming was going to result in more and more severe hurricanes?

I found this little paragrph on a Google search:

............solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.

How is your solar footprint?

Peter, thanks I think this report said there were 0 spots over a measurable period and it was a real shock to them.

Richard, you might want to read what NASA says on the subject, it sounds like you got hooked by some sensationalist journalism.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/11jul_solarcycleupdate.htm

Quote: "I am not well versed on the subject and only have the postition that man does not have much to do with Global warming. "

Isn't it interesting that we - and I include myself in this - have the arrogance to hold an opinion on a subject we actually know nothing about?

Perhaps we should reserve judgement altogether on topics such as global warming, aboigenisis, evolution and the origin of the Universe, hold our hands up and say... I just don't know enough to have an opinion?

Just a thought

auctionwatch Wrote:

Quote: "
Isn't it interesting that we - and I include myself in this - have the arrogance to hold an opinion on a subject we actually know nothing about?
[/quote]

Do you have enough information to make that observation? Is there really anything you literally know nothing about? If so, then by all means hold your opinion until you educate yourself a bit.

[quote]
Perhaps we should reserve judgement altogether on topics such as global warming, aboigenisis, evolution and the origin of the Universe, hold our hands up and say... I just don't know enough to have an opinion?
Just a thought
"

Maybe we should cover our eyes, our ears and our mouths and let others think for us. Or maybe we should form our opinions from our own research and experiences and develop our thoughts and theories by educating ourselves and debating these topics among ourselves. Maybe when we learn new facts, we modify our opinions. Maybe we should NOT sit idly by as leftist politicians try to sell junk science and use it as an excuse to stifle our economy and mandate wealth shifting on a global scale. But hell Steve, what do I know?

Quote: "Do you have enough information to make that observation? Is there really anything you literally know nothing about? If so, then by all means hold your opinion until you educate yourself a bit. "

I should have made it clear I was referring to objective[/i] subjects such as those I mentioned - where there is a clear-cut answer we are using the scientific method to uncover. Obviously I think [i]anyone can share an opinion about subjective topics such as abortion or politics. There is no objective right or wrong answer there.

JNickell Wrote:

Quote: "
Whatever it means, I'm sure it's Bush's fault....
"

Well, I'm glad to see we finally have you on-board.

The good news is that if Obama wins and it gets worse... you guys have the target for a change!

Steve

.......SJJ, I hardly know ye..........but............

OOPS! They're back.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080326-sunspots-erupt.html

Rictus Wrote:

Quote: "
OOPS! They're back.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080326-sunspots-erupt.html
"

Good, I like warming better then cooling and so does my garden. You had me worried.

Warm away...

So, do I leave the top down or put it up?

Rictus Wrote:

Quote: "
OOPS! They're back.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080326-sunspots-erupt.html
"

Just 3 of them though and it seems they are the dregs of cycle 23.

JackMG Wrote:

Quote: "

Funny ice age we've started - most of the northern ice cap has melted and the southern one isn't in good health...
"

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/10/antarctica-ice-cap-growth-reaches.html

http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?kat=2&id=170&lang=2

Only The Weather Channel was disappointed in Gustav. But now they have high hopes for Hannah and Ike. If the two storms merge (Hannah's in heat, waiting for Ike) then I guess they have to rename them "Hike". Either way the Weather Channel is strategically positioning their reporters (I use that term loosely) in prime locations and setting their camera angles for maximum effect.

JackMG Wrote:

Quote: "
Funny ice age we've started - most of the northern ice cap has melted and the southern one isn't in good health...
"

A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Is that how it works?

The Antarctic ice sheet is increasing.

Top down...

JNickell Wrote:

Quote: "
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. Is that how it works?
The Antarctic ice sheet is increasing.
"

According to Denny Burbeck:

The leading U.S. climate scientist Dr. James Hansen responded via email saying "The most precise data on the mass of the ice sheets, from the gravity satellite, show that, overall, Antarctica is losing mass, as is Greenland, even though East Antarctica is gaining a small amount of mass."

"All of the models, and the observations, have the central parts of Greenland and Antarctica growing faster because of global warming. This is a consequence of warmer air holding more moisture, thus increasing snowfall. But the net effect of warming on both continental ice sheets is mass loss, the increased melting being a larger effect than the increased snowfall.

He also said "The fact that West Antarctica is shedding mass at a substantial rate, even though there is only small warming of surrounding sea surface temperatures, is a telling fact in my opinion, and a likely consequence of the warming ocean at depth, which affects the ice shelves that buttress West Antarctica, as discussed in our paper "Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study.""

JNickell Wrote:

Quote: "
auctionwatch Wrote:Quote:
Isn't it interesting that we - and I include myself in this - have the arrogance to hold an opinion on a subject we actually know nothing about?
Do you have enough information to make that observation? Is there really anything you literally know nothing about? If so, then by all means hold your opinion until you educate yourself a bit.

Quote:
Perhaps we should reserve judgement altogether on topics such as global warming, aboigenisis, evolution and the origin of the Universe, hold our hands up and say... I just don't know enough to have an opinion?
Just a thought....

"

Maybe we should cover our eyes, our ears and our mouths and let others think for us. Or maybe we should form our opinions from our own research and experiences and develop our thoughts and theories by educating ourselves and debating these topics among ourselves. Maybe when we learn new facts, we modify our opinions. Maybe we should NOT sit idly by as radical right politicians try to sell junk science and use it as an excuse to destroy our environment and mandate taxing the poor on a global scale. But hell Steve, what do I know?

tfisher7621 Wrote:

Quote: "
6863m Wrote:Quote:
I read a report in the paper today about the recording of Sun spots and that they have had a record period of no sun spots and indicate from historical records that we could be heading into the next ice age.
I am not well versed on the subject and only have the postition that man does not have much to do with Global warming.
I recall a previous post where a bunch of you who something and from all sides had opinions. What about this report.
This undoubtedly goes back to what scientists refer to as the "Maunder Minimum."
The Maunder Minimum is the name given to the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time. It is named after the solar astronomer Edward W. Maunder (1851�1928) who discovered the dearth of sunspots during that period by studying records from those years. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, for example, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000�50,000 spots.
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the middle � and coldest part � of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America, and perhaps much of the rest of the world, were subjected to bitterly cold winters. Whether there is a causal connection between low sunspot activity and cold winters is the subject of ongoing debate.
(BTW, most of this is from wikipedia.)
"

I believe I saw a Discovery or Science Chan thingy on this and it was thought the lack of sun spots was the cause of the mini ice age.

Return to Archive Index | Live Forums Front Page | Website Front Page

Please note this is an archived discussion.
If you would like to add a comment or question please follow this link:
Live discussion: MGB: Sun spots