Major drop in solar activity ahead, scientists say

[k4kyv]

I'm all for funding science. That's not what is being discussed here. This is junk science. Please stay on topic.
...Charlatans and morons posing as scientists trying to obtain research funding (knowing full well some idiot in the government will fall for their crap and supply the money).

The sun might be headed for a rest period, according to according to a June 14 announcement by scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)... Research results, at the 2011 annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, suggest familiar sunspot cycle might be shutting down for a while...

http://www.nso.edu/press/

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/jasonj/GROUP/index.html

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/AFRL/

Junk science? Charlatans and morons posing as scientists? Look like pretty respectable credentials to me.

[W3RSW]

....and Ah, yes.
more junk science Steve?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

Never trust those with academic beards.

[Ed/KB1HYS]

Junk Science?  When you have hundreds of years of empirical data to back up your statement you are far better off than any one who stands on consensus.

All weather on this planet is driven by solar energy.  A relatively tiny change in solar output will create dramatic (to us) changes in the planetary weather patterns.  This can be due to an actual drop in sols output, or even by the solar system passing through a region of the galaxy containing large quantities of interstellar dust.  The same thing can happen if solar output increases.

The changing weather patterns of this planet is a very real event, and proven through geologic history via fossil records, glacial ice cores etc.  It's been going on for millions of years.  The effect of solar output, as measured through sunspots, has been correlated via a few hundred yeard of recorded data.

 Those who adapt to the new conditions survive.   Those who run around outlawing lightbulbs instead of figuring out how to grow more food in a changing environment will become extinct.

[k4kyv]

All weather on this planet is driven by solar energy.  A relatively tiny change in solar output will create dramatic (to us) changes in the planetary weather patterns.  This can be due to an actual drop in sols output, or even by the solar system passing through a region of the galaxy containing large quantities of interstellar dust.  The same thing can happen if solar output increases.

Weather in our atmosphere is a chaotic system. So is solar weather. Certain patterns can be observed and predictions can be based on them, but any prediction is only a probability, because there are too many uncertainties involved.  For example, just follow the 5-day local weather forecast. An excellent demonstration of chaos theory can be seen at the Exploratorium in San Francisco at the Compound Pendula display.

The changing weather patterns of this planet is a very real event, and proven through geologic history via fossil records, glacial ice cores etc.  It's been going on for millions of years.  The effect of solar output, as measured through sunspots, has been correlated via a few hundred years of recorded data.

Those who adapt to the new conditions survive.   Those who run around outlawing lightbulbs instead of figuring out how to grow more food in a changing environment will become extinct.

Like the maximum peak of the sunspot cycle, we won't know for sure where climate change will take us until well after the fact, and none of us will live long enough to see that.  If indeed human activity is partially or wholly responsible for the apparent global warming trend, it is almost certainly too late to reverse it or even stop it. The best we can do is damage control; that's what the current debate is all about.

[Steve - K4HX]

Yes, Don, junk science. So called scientists gave dire predictions of an ice age in the 1970s. After no ice age occurred, the story was switched to global warming and that we'd all drown. Now it's back to an ice age. The track record of these predictions is horrible. Yes, junk science and scare tactics. It keeps the money coming and the uneducated public keeps buying it.

I've worked with real scientists for 30 years. I know the difference between the good ones and the bad/fake ones. I'd be interested in hearing your about your direct interactions with scientists and the scientific community and your methods for determining credentials and track records.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

I'm all for funding science. That's not what is being discussed here. This is junk science. Please stay on topic.
...Charlatans and morons posing as scientists trying to obtain research funding (knowing full well some idiot in the government will fall for their crap and supply the money).

The sun might be headed for a rest period, according to according to a June 14 announcement by scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)... Research results, at the 2011 annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, suggest familiar sunspot cycle might be shutting down for a while...

http://www.nso.edu/press/

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/jasonj/GROUP/index.html

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/AFRL/

Junk science? Charlatans and morons posing as scientists? Look like pretty respectable credentials to me.

[Bill, KD0HG]

It's not about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, which the smartest and most learned people argued about long ago.

We don't have enough information to get to the bottom of climate change, or not, yet.

As for all scientists-- Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.

[Steve - K4HX]

Right on Bill. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Scientists have alternately predicted warming or cooling regularly since at least the beginning of the 20th century. Below is an article from the Richmond Examiner on October 5, 1911 where it is claimed the climate of California will be changed due to wireless (radio) signals. Funny stuff.

[W2PFY]

I have read that the sun is getting brighter every year. If it's getting brighter, it must be running at a higher temperature.  It will continue to get brighter, thus higher temperatures here on earth. Does this make any sense?

[w8khk]

Right on Bill. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Scientists have alternately predicted warming or cooling regularly since at least the beginning of the 20th century. Below is an article from the Richmond Examiner on October 5, 1911 where it is claimed the climate of California will be changed due to wireless (radio) signals. Funny stuff.

Ah Ha!  So that is where the term "Cloud Burner" originated!!!!   As long as amateurs get the credit - er blame, for the global warming, I say "Turn up the wick and Strap!"

[W1VD]

And why would one think that mother nature, given some time, can't counteract man's goings-on that may (or may not) have a small influence on our climate? It's a closed loop system after all.   

[KZ5A]

And why would one think that mother nature, given some time, can't counteract man's goings-on that may (or may not) have a small influence on our climate?   

Why would anyone think that man is not an integral part of "Mother Nature"?  Or one of her many tools?

The concern is surviving a change when it comes, a process that will be greatly enhanced by knowledge of what's happening, why it's happening, and what it implies.

So my money is always with the scientist, as science is man's only real hope for long term survival.  But then I have no problem with leaving the ignorant to their bliss either, as long as they stay out of the way of progress.

73 Jack KZ5A

PS.... If you heard it on "Fox News" it is almost certainly BS.

[Tom WA3KLR]

I have noticed that teeth are getting brighter.

[Steve - K4HX]

Blind faith in science is not the best hope for survival. Here's a claim that temperatures were warming from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12 Nov 1938.

[Steve - K4HX]

Then in 1951 there were predictions of cooling and delayed/reduced sunspots (sound familiar). Of course we all know that the sunspot peak in 1959 was the largest in the 20th century. This guy worked at MIT, so he HAD to be right, at least to the blinder faithers.

[W2PFY]

PS.... If you heard it on "Fox News" it is almost certainly BS.

I don't agree but then when making a statement like the above, it smacks of political BS that really doesn't belong here.

If were were to get a sudden mini ice age, what would happen to all our nuclear generators and holding pools for spent rods? would we have time to move and clean up the area?

[Steve - K4HX]

Amid the cooling forecasts of the 1950's, there were also forecasts of warming, ice melting and a 150 foot rise in the oceans (sound familiar). Can you say clueless? According to the blind faithers we should have been wiped out long ago. Belief in stupidity posing as science is not our best hope for survival.

[W1VD]

So my money is always with the scientist

50% of all scientists finished in the bottom half of their class 

 

[Ed/KB1HYS]

It boils down to an inexact science, that is frequently abused by charlitans and hucksters who would make a buck by fear mongering.  Ethics requires that if a scientist finds something that could cause havoc with peoples lifes they should issue a warning.  (how about the approach of a giant asteroid instead of climate change).  The problem is that not everything is known about our climate, so into this gray area comes the hucksters, who deliberately cloud (no pun intended) the situation for their benifit.  Add in a healthy does of ignorant politician and populace and viola!  one big mess.

Some day the guy who was right willl shouted down and ignored.

[Steve - K4HX]

You've nailed it Ed. The hubris of many so-called scientists drives them to claim they know more than they actually know or draw faulty conclusions from poorly gathered and insufficient data. Hey, they are the wizards after all and they know better than everyone else. We must blindly follow them. Add in human factors like lack of ethics, politics, greed and the desire for power and recognition (even though some claim such things do not exist in the scientific community) and lots of garbage gets out.

These proclamations are readily gobbled up by the science true believers and the brain-dead media even though they wouldn't know real solid science if it hit them in the face. Those who question are shouted down as non-believers and flat-earthers. Of course, blindly believing a scientist is the most unscientific thing you can do. That is lost on the true believers.

[W1AEX]

50% of all scientists finished in the bottom half of their class  

Jay, you always say just the right thing to get people to think, "Huh? What did he just say?"

If scientists were absolutely pure and incapable of being manipulated by politics or their own result-driven agendas, their data might be above reproach. My own observation is that they are human and not above making mistakes. When they cross into the realm of making predictions about future climate trends and solar activity, they might be right around 50% of the time.

I still enjoy it when pseudo-celebrity experts (like Danny Glover) start throwing percentages around, especially with things like the measurable rise of carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere. So, the next time someone starts screaming hysterically that carbon dioxide levels have risen 10% over the last 50 years, ask them what that means, given that carbon dioxide makes up only .03% of the total atmosphere. Hint: .03% x 1.10% = .033% for a net total change of .003%, (three-thousandths of one percent) in the make-up of the atmosphere. The truth is, no one really knows exactly what such a micro change in the environment means. The climate model is far too complex to draw any conclusions, but that doesn't stop various groups from trying.

No matter what is predicted by the experts for the next solar cycle(s), I'm still cranking my tower down, tilting it over, and putting something better up there for the upper bands. I want to enjoy the ride while I'm still here!

Rob W1AEX  

[Bill, KD0HG]

Keep an open mind. There isn't enough historical data and we don't live a thousand- or ten thousand years. I don't know if the best of computer models "get it" yet. Let's discuss again a century from now.

[W2PFY]

Let's discuss again a century from now.

Ok

[Steve - K4HX]

We won't be around in a century. But we can go back a century and see this nonsense has been going on since then. A century of false claims is more than enough to prove this climate change hyperbole should not be taken seriously.

[k4kyv]

Keep an open mind. There isn't enough historical data and we don't live a thousand- or ten thousand years. I don't know if the best of computer models "get it" yet. Let's discuss again a century from now.

That's the best we can do.  We won't even know the date when Cycle 24 hits its peak or what the maximum smoothed sunspot number will be until well after the fact.  The same with climate change.  We can speculate about the various possibilities and create computer models based on the data we have collected and each of those possibilities.

But fortunately, coming to our rescue (now play the fanfare), we have deniers who already know for sure that it's all junk science, a politically inspired hoax created by a bunch of charlatans, and true believers with pure faith in a 100% certainty beyond any reasonable doubt that it's going to happen exactly as predicted by infallible experts.

I just wish I were one of the enlightened few who know it all.

[W3SLK]

One thing that is true is that the earth "wobbles" on its axis. Making the upper regions get closer and travel further from the sun. This "wobble" make a complete rotation every 26,000 years. In 16,000(?) our north star will no longer be Polaris but Vega. But as been stated before, history holds the key.