It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists Warn Sun Will "Go to Sleep" in 2030, Could Cause Temperatures to Plummet

page: 4
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
I really just do not get how they come up with these figures other than guesstimates.....

We would actually have to have a clue as to how the sun cycles work over many thousands of years,these models they are using are based on incomplete data.....anyhow i would take a stab in the dark here and say these guys and gals are way off...


The cycles being studied are pretty tight...in the 11 to 22 year range, for the most part. So if you had fairly reliable data going back even, say, two hundred years, this would represent as many as 18 cycles. That should be able to give you a pretty good idea (unless there is some long-cycle variation that needs to be taken into account to generate a highly accurate solar cycle clock).

I am not familiar with this latest work - but I think there is a fairly simple way to test if it is accurate or not. Just run the model backward and if, when it simulates 1645, you see a sharp drop off in activity and irradiation...then you have a winner!




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
There are indeed other cycles which affect solar output, among them are various harmonics amongst the outer planets:


There are four strong correlations with the motion of the Jovian planets; the probability of occurring by chance being [less than] 10−5. They are i) the PCR periodicities at 87, 350, 510, and 710 years, which closely approximate integer multiples of half the Uranus–Neptune synodic period

...

Furthermore, sunspot and neutron-monitor data show that three anomalous sunspot cycles (4th, 7th, and 20th) and the long sunspot minimum of 2006 – 2009 CE coincided with the first and second barycentric anomalies of the 58th and 59th Jose cycles.

...

These correlations are not of terrestrial origin, nor are they due to the planets’ contributing directly to the cosmic-ray modulation process in the heliosphere. Low cosmic-ray intensity (higher solar activity) occurred when Uranus and Neptune were in superior conjunction (mutual cancellation), while high intensities occurred when Uranus–Neptune were in inferior conjunction (additive effects). Many of the prominent peaks in the PCR Fourier spectrum can be explained in terms of the Jose cycle, and the occurrence of barycentric anomalies.


From the abstract of Evidence for Planetary Forcing of the Cosmic Ray Intensity and Solar Activity Throughout the Past 9400 Years

PuterMan has also done some interesting research to indicate that the outer planets may also play a role in earthquake cycles.

We aren't doing the biosphere any favors on a large scale and our industry certainly has a detrimental effect upon our atmosphere, but there are a lot of other factors out there of which we are still unaware.
edit on 11-7-2015 by jadedANDcynical because: changed less than symbol to "[less than]" as it breaks the post otherwise



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Have they taxed it yet?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
This whole climate thing is getting really hard to keep up with ?


The only thing to remember is that the climate is in a constant state of motion.

Has been for eons.

Then comes along some scientists hitting with the doom porn so politicians will 'reward' them with more tax dollars.

Society then transitions from social engineering to geo engineering.

Can't let a good crisis go to waste after all.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I lived through the 2011 not so solar storms. I think we'll be fine.

The sun is the one constant in our world and the least likely candidate to wipe us out-If it's tantrums were so dangerous then why are we still here? A year for us is a thousandth of a blink of an eye compared to the sun, whatever changes the sun undergoes is just a burp for now.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Skid Mark


Antarctica was once green.


No, it's always been very cold in that area due to Earth's 23 degree tilt.

You might be thinking of Greenland...but that's always been cold too. Erik the Red gave it that name in the hope of attracting settlers.

Iceland got its name because...well, it was icy...



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

No hes not wrong.

Land masses move. Anataractica was green. When it was at a lower latitude.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: Skid Mark


Antarctica was once green.


No, it's always been very cold in that area due to Earth's 23 degree tilt.

You might be thinking of Greenland...but that's always been cold too. Erik the Red gave it that name in the hope of attracting settlers.

Iceland got its name because...well, it was icy...


Actually it was once habitable, but he failed to remember that approximately 299 million years ago when it was habitable it was also closer to the equator.



It isn't so bad that he didn't know that, but it is kind of concerning that twenty something other people missed it.
edit on 11-7-2015 by grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

The land which now resides in that area has moved around over time on tectonic plates, and once enjoyed sunnier climes.

But the area where Antarctica now resides has always been cold.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

ever heard of the acronymn FOS?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

the sun will not stop burning till fuel is spent. cold sun? wth?



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gyo01

sub atomic and quantum physics says ur sources are FOS.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
a reply to: grimpachi

The land which now resides in that area has moved around over time on tectonic plates, and once enjoyed sunnier climes.

But the area where Antarctica now resides has always been cold.


you were not very specific. you should had said THE AREA where it IS NOW has always been cold bu the land mass itself was not.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
So this latest research of a Maunder minimum or little Ice age coming as the Sun "goes to sleep" Is going to have the chancy Pulitzer prize winner, George Monbiot burning the candle for a while dreaming up a new scenario for global warming/climate change/AGW/ and so on, because this new period 2030-2040-50 is slap in the middle of his tip-over period for any of the above, 'cough' warmings, and he's been rattling on about it in The Guardian for years now, btw the late summer Arctic ice should be gone by now, in fact several years ago according to this esteemed writer. Back in 2010 I did a thread about a maunder minimum type of period that was expected around 2020, and in 2011 another research group came out with the possibility of a Maunder type scenario, also starting in 2020 or so, at the 'end of the current cycle', Link below,

www.realclimate.org...
I dare say George will talking about this in The Guardian soon, it will be interesting.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I don't know all those scientific models from the oort cloud to deadly cosmic rays from out of space. if this is true then I understand the resurrection of the woolly mammoth

because in about thirty years we need them for hunting again...



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grimpachi

Close, but less water. More exposed earth.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It should read;

"Scientist warn that scientist don't understand the climate"

"Scientist warn that they don't know anything yet but they have theories"



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Always the same UK global warming sites/skeptics who come up with this, especially dailymail.co.uk..

www.skepticalscience.com...


In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.


Also the say; in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

I wonder how good that research was back then, could they really see and register sun flares/activity back then?

But what about the acidification of the ocean's, yea that's no problem... doesn't matter..



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
It should read;

"Scientist warn that scientist don't understand the climate"

"Scientist warn that they don't know anything yet but they have theories"



To be thorough the articles in science publications didn't speculate. It was the Daily Mail article that jumped to a conclusion and didn't explain to its audience that "solar activity" refers to sunspots and flares.

There isn't anything shocking about the info, but it has been presented in a way that will shock some.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: _BoneZ_

If our star is going to cool down there is reason enough to use our failsafe and find a way to light up one of our gas giants.. We beter start working the problem now...


edit on 11/7/2015 by zatara because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join