Missing sun spots

[Observer]

Has anyone heard about the new solar low?

 

I am doing a presentation on it. I guess the sun goes through 11 year cycles (11 of high solar activity and 11 of low) But right now it has reached a new low. So this means the heliosphere, which protects us from interstellar space, does not extend as far as normal.

 

What does this mean for us? The article I'm reading only says that it will make space exploration more dangerous. How? I guess what I'm looking for is a specific reason it would be more dangerous.

 

Thanks!

[Zeta Pegasi]

Less protection from the sun's heliosphere could make space exploration more dangerous. Without the sun's protection, astronauts could encounter more lethal cosmic rays. Read more here: http://unian.net/eng/news/news-276888.html

[interstellar]

Less protection from the sun's heliosphere could make space exploration more dangerous. Without the sun's protection, astronauts could encounter more lethal cosmic rays. Read more here: http://unian.net/eng/news/news-276888.html

There are other factors to consider. The astronauts are constantly being bombed from the sun with gamma radiation which is just as dangerous just as lethal.

[SkepticLance]

Lesser sunspot activity to a degree mitigates global warming. Does not stop the warming, but slows it down a bit. It has been previously calculated that the global temperature difference due to the sunspot cycle being at a maximum versus the normal minimum is about 0.2 Celsius. If the cycles themselves are reduced, the global temperature is reduced, albeit by a small amount.

 

After all, the previous Maunder Minimum in sunspots, in the 17th Century, was a time called the Little Ice Age.

[iNow]

For context, see the red line:

 

 

 

 

 

Also, here. Solar doesn't look too prominent:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, and await SkepticLance's spin about how he's still right and how my point about making sure the context was set for comments is unecessary.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

You are attempting to argue against a point I was not making. I said that sunspots are one of the factors influencing global warming, and that is true. To argue how much each effect might be is a quite separate argument and lets not go there.

[insane_alien]

skeptic, iNow wasn't arguing anything there, he was providing context for you.

[ydoaPs]

Isn't it obvious? Average temperature is inversely proportional to pirate density. There's been a rise in internet piracy, so the sun is cooling down which will cool the Earth.

[dirtyamerica]

makes sense,

 

we are due for the opposite end of this 11 cycle in 2012, where we will have an increase in sunspots and mass coronal ejections.

[Flashman]

 

 

 

Actually if you look at the humungous error bars on the aerosols column there it could as easily be no net anthropogenic effect....

 

It does actually concern me that huge reductions in particulate emissions of all kinds will reduce available condensation nucleii. This causes losee of cloud cover which causes loss of cloud albedo, resulting in more solare surface energy absorbtion, this in turn puts yet more water vapor in the air, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, which also just hangs around without condensing out due to reduced condensation nucleii. Add to that forest fire suppression efforts and that we haven't have a good humdinger of a volcano in a few years and you've gotta be wondering if that warming is CO2, or lack of particulates.

 

Hmmm by my figuring the error range on that "total" goes from about -.5 to near 4. I guess being honest about how your errors add up isn't good when your error range is 3x your result like that. Or "Hey, this makes the result look like crap, let's average them out instead."

[JohnB]

For context' date=' see the red line:

[img']http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png[/img]

For evidence the graph is junk, see the purple line. Global emissions and concentrations have been falling for years according to the IPCC AR4, yet this graph shows increasing negative forcings from them.

 

Suphates are short lived particles and production is down around 30% since the late '80s. Therefore the negative forcing is decreasing, therefore the forcing used for that graph is wrong. Therefore the final match WRT obs is also wrong.

 

As I said in the Bullsh*t thread.

Bottom line, the artists rendering is claimed to be based on two papers, I have read one of these papers and can find no factual basis for the claim. If it can be shown I've missed something, show me. Otherwise the only possible conclusion is that the claim that the graph is at least partly based on Meehl et al is falsified and the claim untrue.

I have yet to see any evidence that the graph is in fact based even partly on Meehl et al. Until such proof is forthcoming I will call BS every time this graph is used.

[iNow]

Whatever, guys. I'm not going down the "only mildly relevant" details rabbit hole with you tonight.

 

The point is, it ain't the sun causing the climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html

Sun not to blame for global warming.

 

A study has confirmed that there are

no grounds

to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.

 

 

 

Besides, the OP didn't start the thread to talk about global climate change. I was simply putting a blunt edge in front of SkepticLance's distractions.

 

This thread was opened to discuss the potential harms or dangers from the changes in the solar cycle. If you care to continue the battle with me on climate change, open a new thread. You'll lose.

[SkepticLance]

iNow said

 

" I was simply putting a blunt edge in front of SkepticLance's distractions."

 

No, iNow. You were trying to be a problem. The original question asked what effect the coming low in sunspots might have. It is well established that sunspots have an effect on global temperature, with an estimated difference of 0.2 C from high to low in a typical 11 year cycle. This point I made.

 

There was, in fact, no invitation for you to treat it as an argument, since there was nothing controversial stated. I did not try to say that sunspots were the cause of current warming. You were arguing against a point I did not make. ie. You were being difficult. Why not admit that you were out of line?

 

If you want to argue against me, that is fine. But please wait till I say something that you can disagree with. And this time, I said no such thing. In other words, lplease do not try to create unnecessary arguments.

[iNow]

Uh huh. Yup. Whatever Lance.

 

I put context around your comments so they wouldn't be misconstrued. No argument was made. I didn't counter your point, but supplied extra information. This was pointed out to you already above by me and others. Quit taking everything so personally and thinking everything I do is to make things difficult for you. The world doesn't revolve around you.

 

I say again:

This thread was opened to discuss the potential harms or dangers from the changes in the solar cycle.

 

Now, let's allow the OPs question to be addressed directly FFS. You can PM me if you feel the need to keep arguing over nothing.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

If you post information and leave it at that, then fine. You did not. You said :

 

"I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, and await SkepticLance's spin about how he's still right and how my point about making sure the context was set for comments is unecessary."

 

That was a personal and provocative comment, and totally unnecessary. The wording was clearly an intention to argue, when an argument was not needed. You tend to do this sort of thing, even when you do not think you are. I do not like an implication that I am putting 'spin' on a point, when it is merely a factual statement.