Major drop in solar activity ahead, scientists say

[Steve - K4HX]

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

You are Don. You believe in science. That's all that's needed. Facts and track records need not be consulted. No thinking is required. You're golden!

It's too easy to call anyone who questions the bogus predictions as deniers. Such an approach is completely unscientific and usually politically motivated. The use of the term in this context is actually quite insensitive and vulgar. It's a take-off on the Holocaust deniers. To compare the many who dare question certain people's belief on a rather open topic to those who deny that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews is downright disgusting. It shows just how far the true believers will go to squelch any discussion or differing viewpoints.

It's also a cop out to say let's wait 100 years. Many of the predictions aren't for 100 years, but for a much shorter time, like 5 years or ten years (read James Hansen's predictions of global warming made before the Senate in the recent past). I've posted a bunch of them here. We've seen these predictions proven wrong for at least 100 years now. That's a horrible track record. To continue to fall for such repeated nonsense defies logic.

[K6JEK]

I suppose most of you guys won't be reading Al Gore's latest book then.  It's tour d' force of electronic publishing, really quite a neat piece of work.  Here's a review:

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/al-gore-invents-a-showpiece-e-book/

I have to admit I haven't read it but I did fool around with it on an iPad.  Quite cool, actually.

[k4kyv]

It's too easy to call anyone who questions the bogus predictions as deniers. Such an approach is completely unscientific and usually politically motivated.

We won't have to wait that long. Just a couple of years till Cycle 24 reaches its peak.  Let's see if it beats out Cycle 19 (as predicted by some NASA scientists a couple of years ago), or if it turns out to be a disappointing dud like the most recent pass of Halley's Comet in 1986. Maybe that will help sort out who's the charlatan and who's the prophet.

What in the stretch of anyone's imagination could be a political motivation for fraudulently over- or under-predicting something as esoteric as the course of the next sunspot cycle?

Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.

http://listverse.com/2007/10/28/top-30-failed-technology-predictions/

«I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it should be stopped.»
Simon Cameron, U.S. Senator, on the Smithsonian Institute, 1901.

Top 87 Bad Predictions about the Future

[Ed/KB1HYS]

The essence of the scientific method is NOT to prove your theorem (and thereby yourself) correct, but to simply not be able to prove it is wrong.  This means that any scientific postulate remains unconfirmed for some time until enough others have had a stab at finding flaws, inconsistencies or other better theorems to describe the event.  Any 'scientist' who publishes something as incontrovertible fact probably falls into the huckster category.

Alas, real science is seldom as profitable as shuck-n-jive snake oil selling.   Mr. Gore has earns many millions of dollars for himself this way.  But then again, he did invent the internet, so he must be a bright fellow.
 

[KC2ZFA]

a few articles in Time do not validate the statement "So called scientists gave dire predictions of an ice age in the 1970s," particularly in light of the reality that the consensus in the climate science community of the '70s was that we do not know enough yet to decide the issue (see, e.g., http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm ).

OTOH, contrarian arguments du jour have for decades now been parlayed, one after the other as they're being concocted in "think tanks," as the "last nail in the coffin of global warming." It must be some coffin that takes so many "last nails" (and we haven't seen the last of them nails yet) before we could lower it into the ground. Denial of the anthropogenic nature of global warming simply does not pass the smell test. And there's a reason for this: the temperatures keep going up and the regional climates are shifting in step with the projections. Reality cannot be denied.

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.

[KC2ZFA]

I have read that the sun is getting brighter every year.

in the 20th Century, total solar irradiance peaked in the early '60s...

"Since 1975, global temperature has shown long term warming while at the same time, the sun has shown long term cooling."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html

[WD8BIL]

Seems you can't even trust NASA.



But he raises a good question;

Why was the earth much warmer when the Vikings were farming Greenland (a frozen wasteland now) during the Midevial Warming Period? They had no SUVs back then.

[K6JEK]

Al Gore said he invented the Internet:  False

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Many of the best quotes of all time including "I can see Russia from my porch" are misquotes, incorrectly attributed, or were never uttered at all:  

http://listverse.com/2009/03/08/15-notable-political-and-military-misquotes/

[K3ZS]

A weather forecast: "partly cloudy, 50% chance of rain" is almost always correct in the Summer.

[k4kyv]

The essence of the scientific method is NOT to prove your theorem (and thereby yourself) correct, but to simply not be able to prove it is wrong.  This means that any scientific postulate remains unconfirmed for some time until enough others have had a stab at finding flaws, inconsistencies or other better theorems to describe the event.  Any 'scientist' who publishes something as incontrovertible fact probably falls into the huckster category.

Too right. It is the responsibility of the scientific community to test the integrity of any postulate by attempting to prove it wrong, and scepticism is one of the pillars of the scientific method. But those who dismiss a postulate or theory off hand, based on ideology or some pre-conceived belief system with no overwhelming evidence to back up their assertions, likewise fall into the huckster category.

Alas, real science is seldom as profitable as shuck-n-jive snake oil selling.   Mr. Gore has earns many millions of dollars for himself this way.  But then again, he did invent the internet, so he must be a bright fellow.

I assume that was in jest.  Mr Gore's assertions probably fall into the realm of the unconfirmed postulate, which may or may not be correct but remain unconfirmed but also un-debunked, and no doubt made him a tidy sum off his books. But to be fair to Gore, he never claimed to have invented the internet, any more than President Eisenhower ever claimed to have gone out with shovel in hand to personally break ground for the interstate highway system.
 

[Ed/KB1HYS]

Yes, the comment about Mr Gore was tough in cheek, hence the ...

It does demonstrate the point that misinformation or comments out of context are hard to correct once released 'into the wild'.

[k4kyv]

I haven't read Mr Gore's latest book (don't have an i-book or e-book or whatever you call it), but I did go see Inconvenient Truth. What I most remember about it is that I had a hard time staying awake.

[KX5JT]

I haven't read Mr Gore's latest book (don't have an i-book or e-book or whatever you call it), but I did go see Inconvenient Truth. What I most remember about it is that I had a hard time staying awake.

All you need is a pc to read an ebook.  I do not have a Kindle device, but I have downloaded the Kindle for PC app (free) and therefore I can buy, download and read books from Amazon.com.  There are many books available for free as well.  Most are usually a few bucks cheaper than the softcover or hardcover versions and provide instant gratification at 3 am if I want a book.  

On the other hand,  I can't readily pass that book on to others after I read it.  It also makes me wonder what will happen in thousands of years when future archeologists have no more written records to unbury.

[w3jn]

in the 20th Century, total solar irradiance peaked in the early '60s...

"Since 1975, global temperature has shown long term warming while at the same time, the sun has shown long term cooling."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html

The website you keep quoting most certainly has an agenda - "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

In any event I suspect the debate is not going to be resolved here with "my website quote can beat up your website quote" battles.

[Opcom]

It's all confusing, all those articles.

So what does it really mean in plain terms, that the HF propagation is going to be poor for several years? That some bands will be better, others dead?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

It's all confusing, all those articles.

So what does it really mean in plain terms, that the HF propagation is going to be poor for several years?

Yes, but only at times, depending on atmospheric conditions, time of day, sun activity, etc.

That some bands will be better, others dead?

Yes, but only at times, depending on atmospheric conditions, frequency of use, time of day, sun activity, etc.

I read it on the Internet so it must be true.

[K1JJ]

It's all confusing, all those articles.

So what does it really mean in plain terms, that the HF propagation is going to be poor for several years? That some bands will be better, others dead?

They probably mean raw sunspot activity related to the higher bands compared to previous years.  I suppose the standard best for comparison would be the 1959 peak, which is called "good."  However, cornditions on the lower bands get more local (higher angle) during these peaks, which could be called "bad" depending on your point of view.


Somewhat off topic, I heard an interesting comment from a DXer on 20M yesterday.  He said that DX communication effectiveness was based on these items, IN THIS ORDER:

1) Propagation
2) Location  (The farther from the poles and closer to the equator, the better -  plus salt water, elevation, ground slope, quiet location, etc helps)
3) Antennas
4) Operator skill
5) Equipment

Notice that equipment is last.

If propagation is extremely poor, then all the other items will not help much.  
But if a guy is using poor equipment, he can do rather well if he has optimized the other four items.

T

[KC2ZFA]

The website you keep quoting most certainly has an agenda - "Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

the website I quoted is an aggregator of climate science research and contains references to the peer-reviewed literature that inform its articles. To discount it, one has to be prepared to discount mainstream climate science. I'm an applied mathematician who works on fluid mechanics problems and I understand the issues to enough an extend that I have decided that I cannot discount the relevant science. At some point one has to ask "given that the actual climate-related data measured in the world of objective reality contradicts the claims of the denialists why should I believe anything they have to say ?"

In any event I suspect the debate is not going to be resolved here with "my website quote can beat up your website quote" battles.

Indeed, I agree, but I thought informing my replies in the posts above with the actual data would have been desirable. IMHO, the scientific debate is already settled. OTOH, the "debate" we see in the media is akin to the kind of "debate" we see between pundits about whether the economy grows faster when the top marginal rate is low than when it is high. I strongly believe we here can do better than simply proclaiming the relevant scientists are crooks and therefore we should believe the PR con artists who, e.g., used to provide "science" that proved smoking was harmless before they got on the bandwagon of providing "science" that shows there's no problem in regards to climate.

73 de Peter

[w3jn]

All that's fine, but this is an amateur radio forum, not a climate change website.  At least the original topic was tangentially ham radio related.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I can smell rain coming.
My dogs know when storms are coming.
6 meters has been open every day for the last several weeks.

Scary Stuff!
Over

[k4kyv]

So what does it really mean in plain terms, that the HF propagation is going to be poor for several years? That some bands will be better, others dead?

Basically, the same as what we have been experiencing for the past few years:
160 and 80 should be quieter with longer skip. 75 will tend to "go long" more often.  40m will be different, more long skip, better DX condx, but less stable and poorer for domestic QSOs.  20 will tend to be open only during daylight hours and maybe for a few hours into the evening.  15, spotty if open at all. 10, more like a VHF band than HF. The best band for domestic evening activity will probably be 160.

The down side is the garbage spewed out by consumer electronic junk seems to be increasing exponentially, making 160m reception more difficult, plus the trend towards smaller living spaces and ever-increasing legal restrictions on what we are allowed to do on our own property in this supposedly "free" country.

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate," said Hill.Solar flares and eruptions can send highly charged particles
hurtling toward Earth and interfere with satellite communications,GPS systems and even airline controls.Geomagnetic forces have been known to occasionally garble the world's modern gadgetry, and warnings were issued as recently as
last week when a moderate solar flare sent a coronal mass ejection in the Earth's direction

This could be a boon to human space exploration, since astronauts would be in less danger of being fried by a solar eruption in the course of their flight.

The website I quoted is an aggregator of climate science research and contains references to the peer-reviewed literature that inform its articles. To discount it, one has to be prepared to discount mainstream climate science. I'm an applied mathematician who works on fluid mechanics problems and I understand the issues to enough an extend that I have decided that I cannot discount the relevant science. At some point one has to ask "given that the actual climate-related data measured in the world of objective reality contradicts the claims of the denialists why should I believe anything they have to say ?"... Indeed, I agree, but I thought informing my replies in the posts above with the actual data would have been desirable. IMHO, the scientific debate is already settled...

OTOH, the "debate" we see in the media is akin to the kind of "debate" we see between pundits about whether the economy grows faster when the top marginal rate is low than when it is high. I strongly believe we here can do better than simply proclaiming the relevant scientists are crooks and therefore we should believe the PR con artists who, e.g., used to provide "science" that proved smoking was harmless before they got on the bandwagon of providing "science" that shows there's no problem in regards to climate.

The problem is that so much of own media have an agenda, particularly the major cable networks (e.g. Fox News and MSNBC). The major broadcast networks are looking at the bottom line, so they are looking for sensationalism, and too much coverage is wasted on garbage like trivial celebrity gossip. Instilling fear in the public sells news big time, something that has affected society, not for the better. That, and the endless strings of annoying commercials is the reason I rarely, if ever, watch TV news.

There is still some reliable news in the print media, public radio and (very selectively) over the WWW, but one should always check out their original sources when possible.  For example, when reading a blog or news story online, click on the links back to the original of whatever they are quoting. When listening to broadcast media, go to their website for the same story online, then click on the links. Often, when you finally get to the real story you will find it quite different from what was reported.

International short-wave has about fizzled, but thousands of radio stations world-wide stream their signals, and you can easily pick up many of the same radio broadcasts the locals listen to. I have been having a ball listening world-wide with the internet "radio" I picked up at Dayton this year. 

An amazing number of major world news events never make it through our filtered domestic media.  For example, in March, former French President Jacques Chirac went on trial for embezzlement. If convicted, he could be sentenced up to 10 years. Absolutely nothing about this in any local media, but closely covered on France Inter. Web search pulled up dozens of articles, but before hearing that news story I hadn't a clue.

[KM1H]

Well, 6M was open wide into Europe today and as long as that happens for a few weeks the same time every year no matter what the sun is doing I frankly dont give a damn.

Carl

[k4kyv]

Not only could solar activity be about to drop; the magnetic poles on Earth could be about to flip.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/adjust-your-compass-now-the-north-pole-is-migrating-to-russia-2233610.html

[KB2WIG]

A weather forecast: "partly cloudy, 50% chance of rain" is almost always correct in the Summer.

"Weather tonight: dark. Turning partly light by morning."

                                                                                 Al Sleet

[W2PFY]

I have been having a ball listening world-wide with the internet "radio" I picked up at Dayton this year. 

There are a huge amount of stations on iTunes. It would be great if there were a SW station section.

what is that "internet radio" that you picked up Don?