Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???

1222325272832

Comments



  • Using spaceweather's rather unrealistic recording method, 2019 has already exceeded 2018 spotless days record.

    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 15 days
    2019 total: 29 days (63%)
    2018 total: 221 days (61%)
    2017 total: 104 days (28%)
    2016 total: 32 days (9%)
    2015 total: 0 days (0%)
    2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
    2013 total: 0 days (0%)
    2012 total: 0 days (0%)
    2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
    2010 total: 51 days (14%)
    2009 total: 260 days (71%)
    2008 total: 268 days (73%)
    2007 total: 152 days (42%)
    2006 total: 70 days (19%)
    Updated 15 Feb 2019


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    It's funny that the extreme weather the last number of years is always related, ( as far as the IPCC and media are concerned ) to Anthropocentric Climate change, the Sun is not added to the equation and never will because the corrupt IPCC can not now accept any other forms of science because they feel that it's no longer up for debate and Co2 is the cause and won't even peer review anything that contradicts this theory because it's unlikely you could disprove the Co2 argument because you can't no more than you can actually prove it.

    The IPCC relate rising Co2 to weather extremes and relay that as proof, "see we told you" Co2 goes up weather extremes = we were correct but you could also argue weather extremes = caused by low solar activity.

    There is evidence to suggest that in the 1700's that low solar activity caused a lot of extreme weather events too.

    The media won't comment much on the cold experienced this year in the Northern Hemisphere but are only too delighted to comment about heatwaves in Australia.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,822 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    silverharp wrote: »

    Could indeed be true but the media will never buy it because the IPCC will claim it's junk science and that it does not come from climate scientists.

    Or if they did acknowledge it, perhaps when half the planet is frozen they will say it's temporary and we'll roast in hell when temps come back up because of that O'l Devil, Co2.

    Here's the real killer, because they said the science is solid about Co2 they won't allow any other evidence contract their theory that Co2 is causing the planet to warm at an alarming rate, to them it is not a theory.......


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    I laughed when I read this quote.

    “I hope global warning will be overridden by this effect, giving humankind and the Earth 30 years to sort out our pollution,” Zharkova told Sky News, adding that any possible downward impact on global warming will last until 2050s when the Sun's two magnetic waves become active again. “We have to be sorted by that time and prepare everything on Earth for the next big solar

    It's as if Sky News told her " now remember what I told you, you have to mention Global Warming or we won't run the story"


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,034 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Could indeed be true but the media will never buy it because the IPCC will claim it's junk science and that it does not come from climate scientists.

    Or if they did acknowledge it, perhaps when half the planet is frozen they will say it's temporary and we'll roast in hell when temps come back up because of that O'l Devil, Co2.

    Here's the real killer, because they said the science is solid about Co2 they won't allow any other evidence contract their theory that Co2 is causing the planet to warm at an alarming rate, to them it is not a theory.......
    I laughed when I read this quote.

    “I hope global warning will be overridden by this effect, giving humankind and the Earth 30 years to sort out our pollution,” Zharkova told Sky News, adding that any possible downward impact on global warming will last until 2050s when the Sun's two magnetic waves become active again. “We have to be sorted by that time and prepare everything on Earth for the next big solar

    It's as if Sky News told her " now remember what I told you, you have to mention Global Warming or we won't run the story"


    So the scientist is correct when she says that the change in solar radiation could lead to a mini-Ice Age, but she is wrong when she says that this only gives us a short window to deal with the global warming caused by carbon dioxide?


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So the scientist is correct when she says that the change in solar radiation could lead to a mini-Ice Age, but she is wrong when she says that this only gives us a short window to deal with the global warming caused by carbon dioxide?

    Yeah probably because it was a BBC interview they probably insisted she acknowledge Global warming and to say that it's real etc etc.

    Or she said it to gain respect/credibility with the climate alarmists, Corrupt IPCC etc.

    If she came out and said global warming was BS the BBC would have ridiculed her and IPCC call her a lunatic and that her science was junk science.




  • The thing I find most intriguing about all of the "global cooling" talk it that it was only a couple of years ago that anyone who even tried to discuss the possibilities of solar induced cooling would have been dismissed as a crank or a "denier".


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    The thing I find most intriguing about all of the "global cooling" talk it that it was only a couple of years ago that anyone who even tried to discuss the possibilities of solar induced cooling would have been dismissed as a crank or a "denier".

    Yes but she didn't deny global warming and this is a quote from the article.

    I hope global warning will be overridden by this effect, giving humankind and the Earth 30 years to sort out our pollution,” Zharkova told Sky News, adding that any possible downward impact on global warming will last until 2050s when the Sun's two magnetic waves become active again. “We have to be sorted by that time and prepare everything on Earth for the next big solar"

    So she fully admitted global warming is real where as previous scientists may not have and were ridiculed, remember the IPCC no longer accept any views or so called scientific evidence to contradict the global warming because in their warped minds whether they believe it or not the establishment says it's real and that's the only thing that matters.

    In other words , the IPCC can not now say maybe they were wrong because that would discredit them but they are already discredited after the climate gate scandal when even their own internal emails between colleagues admitted they didn't think it was real but it was all down played and the media bought it.

    Look at all the rubbish the media come out with , every couple of months you hear " climate scientists bla bla bla" no matter how ludicrous it sounds the media go with it because it's a story and the media always love sensationalist headlines.

    Remember the article in the British times was it that said something like , " by the year 2000 Children won't know what snow is" ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,034 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Yeah probably because it was a BBC interview they probably insisted she acknowledge Global warming and to say that it's real etc etc.

    Or she said it to gain respect/credibility with the climate alarmists, Corrupt IPCC etc.

    If she came out and said global warming was BS the BBC would have ridiculed her and IPCC call her a lunatic and that her science was junk science.


    I find this difficult to believe.

    The simple answer is that she is telling it all as she sees it, both the cooling effect in the short term and the short term interruption to global warming that it brings.


  • Advertisement


  • Yes but she didn't deny global warming and this is a quote from the article.

    I hope global warning will be overridden by this effect, giving humankind and the Earth 30 years to sort out our pollution,” Zharkova told Sky News, adding that any possible downward impact on global warming will last until 2050s when the Sun's two magnetic waves become active again. “We have to be sorted by that time and prepare everything on Earth for the next big solar"

    So she fully admitted global warming is real where as previous scientists may not have and were ridiculed, remember the IPCC no longer accept any views or so called scientific evidence to contradict the global warming because in their warped minds whether they believe it or not the establishment says it's real and that's the only thing that matters.

    In other words , the IPCC can not now say maybe they were wrong because that would discredit them but they are already discredited after the climate gate scandal when even their own internal emails between colleagues admitted they didn't think it was real but it was all down played and the media bought it.

    Look at all the rubbish the media come out with , every couple of months you hear " climate scientists bla bla bla" no matter how ludicrous it sounds the media go with it because it's a story and the media always love sensationalist headlines.

    Remember the article in the British times was it that said something like , " by the year 2000 Children won't know what snow is" ?
    It's the very concept of solar cooling that was considered "unthinkable" only a few years ago, it is now being openly discussed on mainstream media, unlike being dismissed as crank talk as it used to be.

    This is the point I am making, people are now thinking differently. And yes, it is only temporary.


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    The point being the climate heats and cools has done for millions of years our influence if any would be negligible at worst.

    We didn't cause the melting of the last ice age and that was a lot of ice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,034 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The point being the climate heats and cools has done for millions of years our influence if any would be negligible at worst.

    We didn't cause the melting of the last ice age and that was a lot of ice.


    That is not incompatible with us causing climate change.

    Why did the climate heat and cool in the past? Sometimes it was caused by external factors, sometimes it was caused by tectonic plate movement, but sometimes it was caused by life on earth.

    https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html

    I fully accept that the climate has changed in the past, and that it will change in the future. Man-made greenhouse gases are pushing the climate in one direction. This research has shown that solar magnetic activity may be pushing the climate in another direction and they will cancel each other out over the very short term - a couple of decades - but that we will return to the global warming scenario then.

    There is nothing in that research that disproves man-made climate change.


  • Registered Users Posts: 177 ✭✭odyboody


    Unless your talking about climate change on the sun your in the wrong thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    Fast approaching 08/09 levels at the moment with 20 days in a row blank -


    Current Stretch: 20 days
    2019 total: 34 days (67%)
    2018 total: 221 days (61%)
    2017 total: 104 days (28%)
    2016 total: 32 days (9%)
    2015 total: 0 days (0%)
    2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
    2013 total: 0 days (0%)
    2012 total: 0 days (0%)
    2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
    2010 total: 51 days (14%)
    2009 total: 260 days (71%)
    2008 total: 268 days (73%)
    2007 total: 152 days (42%)
    2006 total: 70 days (19%)
    Updated 20 Feb 2019


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    blanch152 wrote: »
    but that we will return to the global warming scenario then.

    Imagine that, the Earth warming up again after a cold decade or two perhaps more ! ......................


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    25 consecutive days on the blink now - A blank February thus far. 7 more days to match the longest blank streak from the last solar minimum I believe (32 days) - Certainly a possibility at this stage...

    hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=di1vpt7caim8q7njljntrmmgu2


    Current Stretch: 25 days
    2019 total: 39 days (70%)
    2018 total: 221 days (61%)
    2017 total: 104 days (28%)
    2016 total: 32 days (9%)
    2015 total: 0 days (0%)
    2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
    2013 total: 0 days (0%)
    2012 total: 0 days (0%)
    2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
    2010 total: 51 days (14%)
    2009 total: 260 days (71%)
    2008 total: 268 days (73%)
    2007 total: 152 days (42%)
    2006 total: 70 days (19%)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    A whole calendar month without Sunspots now, on par with 08' levels currently!


    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 28 days
    2019 total: 43 days (73%)
    2018 total: 221 days (61%)
    2017 total: 104 days (28%)
    2016 total: 32 days (9%)
    2015 total: 0 days (0%)
    2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
    2013 total: 0 days (0%)
    2012 total: 0 days (0%)
    2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
    2010 total: 51 days (14%)
    2009 total: 260 days (71%)
    2008 total: 268 days (73%)
    2007 total: 152 days (42%)
    2006 total: 70 days (19%)


  • Posts: 21,179 ✭✭✭✭ Gloria Great Goose-step


    Any more news about that big flare ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    We have a bit to run to come close to the longest blank streak from 08-09, I think it was actually 52 consecutive blank days, not 32 as mentioned above.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,163 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    BLIZZARD7 wrote:
    Spotless Days Current Stretch: 28 days 2019 total: 43 days (73%) 2018 total: 221 days (61%) 2017 total: 104 days (28%) 2016 total: 32 days (9%) 2015 total: 0 days (0%) 2014 total: 1 day (

    BLIZZARD7 wrote:
    A whole calendar month without Sunspots now, on par with 08' levels currently!

    Is there an archive on spaceweather where you could pull up a similar list to the above for say the last 50+ years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 52 ✭✭damino


    List of years with most consecutive spotless days.


  • Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭bazlers


    damino wrote: »
    List of years with most consecutive spotless days.

    http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Educational/2/3/6


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,477 ✭✭✭✭sryanbruen






  • This solar minimum looks like it's going to be really deep as predicted.
    http://spaceweather.com/
    A MONTH WITHOUT SUNSPOTS: There are 28 days in February. This year, all 28 of them were spotless. The sun had no sunspots for the entire month of Feb. 2019. This is how the solar disk looked every day:
    blanksun_strip.jpg
    The last time a full calendar month passed without a sunspot was August 2008. At the time, the sun was in the deepest Solar Minimum of the Space Age. Now a new Solar Minimum is in progress and it is shaping up to be similarly deep. So far this year, the sun has been blank 73% of the time--the same as 2008.

    Edit:
    just to add this
    sunspotcycle_strip.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    Definitely looking like a deep one - Running at 75% blank so far for 2019, Day 32 in a row. Radio Sun: SFU @ 70

    hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=scd2ingoqlnb0l9lt9ek3h49l2

    Current Stretch: 32 days
    2019 total: 47 days (75%)
    2018 total: 221 days (61%)
    2017 total: 104 days (28%)
    2016 total: 32 days (9%)
    2015 total: 0 days (0%)
    2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
    2013 total: 0 days (0%)
    2012 total: 0 days (0%)
    2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
    2010 total: 51 days (14%)
    2009 total: 260 days (71%)
    2008 total: 268 days (73%)
    2007 total: 152 days (42%)
    2006 total: 70 days (19%)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    damino wrote: »
    List of years with most consecutive spotless days.

    Well we've matched the last solar cycle's consecutive blank run going off this, only problem with this stat is there hasn't been a consistent method of recording sunspots historically and so theres some argument over these counts.

    There's no doubt this is a deep minimum though and the next 6-12 months should be quite telling in just how sharp a decline we are looking at this time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 688 ✭✭✭bazlers


    I take it then Blizzard your interest in the sunspot numbers is because you believe it will effect our future weather?

    Percentage wise how big an influence do you believe this to be if we are indeed heading into a deep solar minumum, and what years do you believe it will be most felt?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,550 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    I am hoping there is a lag effect which means the winter of 2019/20 will be a cold one.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    bazlers wrote: »
    I take it then Blizzard your interest in the sunspot numbers is because you believe it will effect our future weather?

    Percentage wise how big an influence do you believe this to be if we are indeed heading into a deep solar minumum, and what years do you believe it will be most felt?


    I'm interested in the potential link yes, The evidence is strongest for the deepest minimums and so I would like to see as quiet a minimum as possible to see any potential effect on our weather.

    If this is the long and very deep minimum some believe we are just slipping into then I would expect a notable impact on our climate into the early 2020's. Winter 19/20 as the kick-off point. This would fit fairly well timing wise with the last minimum in 08/09- as Nacho Hope's above, there does seem to be a slight lag.

    Next winter can hardly be anything but colder than this just gone though, I'd be taking note of anything exceptional. It won't be apparent for a few years if this is actually what is going on or if there are other factors at play. A big volcanic eruption in the next few years would make it hard to draw conclusions for example.

    So yeah I'm interested to see A) are we slipping into a grand minimum? And B) What affect will this have on our climate? if any.

    Hard to put a percentage on it but I would absolutely expect our climate to be notably cooler soon if we are indeed heading into a grand solar minimum. (Also interested to see how this might play out against the fact the earth is currently warming)


Advertisement