Vanishing Sunspot Mystery Has Scientists Worried! The Beginning Of The Ice Age?

Originally posted by mikesingh
Sunspots are dark, cool regions with intense magnetic fields or magnetic loops bursting out from the Sun's interior that inhibit convection, forming areas of reduced surface temperature. Visible from Earth even without a telescope sunspots have temperatures of roughly 4,000–4,500 K. However, as the temperatures of the surrounding area are approx 5,800 K, these become clearly visible as dark spots or sunspots.

Sunspot in comparison with the size of the Earth
Courtesy: STEREO

Sunspots, some as large as 80,000 km in diameter, typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. Over the past decade some researchers say they've found puzzling correlations between changes in the sun's output and weather and climate patterns on Earth.

Now they (Sunspots) are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Although periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, this current period has gone on much longer than usual and scientists are starting to worry.

"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission, noting that it is at least a little bit worrisome for scientists. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.

Global Warming Or The Coming Ice Age?

According to Geophysicist Phil Chapman, pictures from SOHO show that there is no sunspot activity on the sun at present. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C! He also cautioned that another mini Ice Age could come without warning.

From the film, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’

Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming.

Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.

So what of ‘Global Warming’? Do scientists have to revisit their predictions and nightmare scenarios painted by them of retreating glaciers and rising sea levels drowning out coastal cities etc? Or is global warming a conspiracy? Or is it that we just don’t know what the heck is happening and imagining devastating scenarios based on inaccurate climate models that we know little or nothing about? Or are we now witnessing the end of a global warming period and the beginning of another ice age?

Time will tell. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what the future holds.


Refs:
www.dailygalaxy.com...
www.csmonitor.com...
solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.guardian.co.uk...

They are worried that their funding to stop global warming will evaporate. But never fear, they can now cause panic over an impending ice age and get more funding.

If you do a Google search for "Greenland Viking Farming" you will see that we need more global warming so Greenland can once again be a net exporter of agricultural products like they were 1,000 years ago.

Climate hype is all about controlling you and me.

its not gone, its there behide what we can not see yet ! behide the sun, its like a fire storm ! it moves and its weather is heat ! and magnetics

Here is another article supporting a cooling earth, rather than a warming one:

www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2008/11/23/do2310b.xml

Second only to the melting of the Arctic ice and those "drowning" polar bears, there is no scare with which the global warmists, led by Al Gore, more like to chill our blood than the fast-vanishing glaciers of the Himalayas, which help to provide water for a sixth of mankind. Recently one newspaper published large pictures to illustrate the alarming retreat in the past 40 years of the Rongbuk glacier below Everest. Indian meteorologists, it was reported, were warning that, thanks to global warming, all the Himalayan glaciers could have disappeared by 2035.

Yet two days earlier a report by the UN Environment Program had claimed that the cause of the melting glaciers was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast "atmospheric brown cloud" hanging over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia's dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Instead of selective editing by Al Gore and his crowd, here is the whole story of the glaciers in the Himalayas:

Furthermore a British study published two years ago by the American Meteorological Society found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening and expanding".

As for the "disappearing" polar bears, here is the real story:

Meanwhile, all last week, ITV News was running a series of wearisomely familiar scare stories on the disappearing Arctic ice and those "doomed" polar bears - without telling its viewers that satellite images now show ice cover above its 30-year average, or that polar bear numbers are at record level. But then "polar bears not drowning after all - as snow falls over large parts of Britain" doesn't really make a story.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Thank you for bringing up the polar bears.

It seemed obvious to me when the push was on to declare them an 'endangered species' what the real agenda was. Never until that time was an animal classified as such with such huge numbers as the polar bear population could then (and now) claim. Yet, this classification was rushed through, with some scientists and conservation experts pointing out repeatedly that the polar bear population was actually at record numbers and growing. The answer to these claims was not to dispute them, but rather to claim that it was being done because the polar bear would be endangered in the future, an obviously ludicrous argument. Why would this happen? Who would benefit?

I can only think of one answer. The beneficiaries of this action would be those who believed in Global Warming. Just as in the case of the Himalayan glaciers, which are only melting in one area due to local environmental problems, the Arctic is also losing some ice due (in all probability) to volcanic activity on the sea floor heating the surrounding water mass. Both phenomena have something in common with each other, and this commonality seems to be repeatable in almost every so-called 'proof' that Global Warming is happening at a catastrophic rate: local phenomena are played up to give the false impression that Global Warming is real and catastrophic.

So should the polar bear survive on their own after the claims otherwise, it would blow a big hole in the logic used to promote Global Warming. But... if the polar bears survive under endangered protection this can be explained as a heroic act by the government to save them, both making the government endangered species program look good for saving an endangered species and allowing the perceived threat of catastrophic Global Warming to remain unharmed in the process. After all, they survived thanks solely to our protection, right?

Global Warming theory is sorta like a septic tank... the deeper you dig, the more it smells.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck



I agree. I know a charity that suggested sending out floating, safe, ecological platforms for the polar bears to climb on to for rest. It was not a long term solution but would help the immediate symptom and reduce risk of extinction. And they were really surprised at how much resistance there was to this. It seemed as if there was more value in the polar bears being a poster child for global warming than there was value in rescuing them. And that was disconcerting and suspicious. Either the vocal groups involved were heartless or the bears didn't really need rescuing immediately. One other note, the platforms would clearly have worked as there are wildlife making themselves at home all over oil platforms and docks around the world. Even oil companies offered to provide the logistics (but they were not the only ones and they weren't the reason for the rejection - fear of greenwashing etc.)

I'm not sure what was/ is going on there - but it's odd.

reply to post by trusername

There are plenty of other similar happenings as well. Here's one of them:

Planet saved without taxation! Well, almost...

Any time technology becomes the bane of science, it makes me think there has to be a lot more to the story than people are being told. Technology is the result of science.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

Any time technology becomes the bane of science, it makes me think there has to be a lot more to the story than people are being told. Technology is the result of science.

It amazes me how people consider "man-made" or technology as ALWAYS evil and natural as always good. The first thing I want to do (and have done on occasion) is ask for their car keys. After all if technology and chemicals are evil they shouldn't be driving. (next of course is to ask for the wallet and cloths)

I have noticed a strange effect:

Hot summer/Mild Winter = Media hype over Global Warming
Cold Winter/Wet Summer = Media hype over Ice Age

This summer in England, it was wet and all the global warming theorists kept their mouths shut. In fact we didnt get a doom and gloom report about the weather until we had 2 days of sunshine, then it was splashed across the front page about 'Global Warming' of the Metro newspaper. It rained the next day and they shut up again

...but then, how many scientists would get funding if they admitted they didnt know what was going on?

.... or how many people would buy a newspaper if they admitted they didnt know what was going on?

Buy my newspaper. It's got some facts in, possibly!

reply to post by Phage

Couldn't help but notice that the next high-peak on that image there is late 2012.

reply to post by crimvelvet

It amazes me how people consider "man-made" or technology as ALWAYS evil and natural as always good.

You and TheRedneck are correct. I think I found out why people today think that man-made or technology are evil. This article explains the problem:

www.independent.co.uk...

0%: What this year's top science pupils would have got in 1965

GCSE students flunk past papers in experiment that exposes decline in standards

By Richard Garner, Education Editor
Thursday, 27 November 2008
The RSC says the current examination system is 'failing a generation'

High-flying GCSE students set for an A or A* pass scored zero points in a mock science exam which included old O-level questions.

The two-hour exam, devised by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and named "The Five Decade Challenge", included questions from past science papers spread over the past 43 years.

The results published today showed the older the paper, the fewer marks the students scored. For instance, the average score for the 2005 paper questions was 35 per cent, compared to 15 per cent for the 1965 questions.

Overall, the average score was 25 per cent but the RSC said some children scored no marks at all. The RSC called the test, taken by just over 1,300 of the country's brightest 16-year-olds, the first hard evidence of a "catastrophic slippage" in exam standards.

In a petition launched on the Downing Street website, the RSC says the current examination system was "failing a generation, which will be unequipped to address key issues facing society, whether as specialist scientists or members of a scientific community".

Too many teachers were "teaching to the test" because of the pressure of performance league tables, so students were missing out on background information to help them understand their subject. Despite taking into account syllabus changes which meant certain topics – such as enthalpy and bond energies – were not tackled until A-level, the results, it argued, provided conclusive proof that the papers had become easier. In particular, it added, today's pupils lacked the maths skills necessary to tackle the calculations associated with equations.

Dr Richard Pike, chief executive of the RSC, said: "The brightest pupils are not being trained in mathematical techniques, because they can get a grade A* pass without doing a single calculation. Conversely, the majority get at least a 'good pass' (grade C) by showing merely a superficial knowledge on a wide range of issues but no understanding of the fundamentals.

"The fact highly-intelligent youngsters were unfamiliar with these types of questions, obtaining on average 35 per cent from recent papers and just 15 per cent from the 1960s, points to a systematic failure and misplaced priorities in the education system."

The top mark was 94 per cent. The average was 33 per cent for independent schools, 23 per cent for state schools, 27 per cent for boys and 23 per cent for girls. "Children are being asked questions that show our curriculum isn't preparing them for the 21st century," said Michael Gove, the shadow Education Secretary.

A campaign to recruit 6,600 science teachers in the next two years is being launched today by the Training and Development Agency, which is responsible for teacher recruitment. It is exceeding its recruitment target for science teachers by two per cent this year.

"The Schools minister thinks science should be made more 'girl-friendly'. How so? By studding lab coats with pink rhinestones?"

Science has now become the purveyance of the politicians like Al Gore. It doesn't have to follow any natural laws, it just has to be politically correct.

By the way, A Belated HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL. I hope you had plenty of turkey and all the trimmings. We certainly did.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by ProfEmeritus]

Here's a website that tracks the growing glaciers around the world.

Growing Glaciers

Then there's the whole thing about Mt. Shasta,
Mt. Shasta Glaciers Growing

Then there are the growing glaciers in the Himalayas,
Himalayan Glaciers Grow

Then there are the reports from Norway that their glaciers are growing again.
Norway's Glaciers Growing

Then there's the Farmer's Almanac saying it's going to be getting colder,

Farmer's Almanac

As one can see, there are plenty of credible sources one can consult that claim things are getting colder.

reply to post by bpg131313

Yes, and in fact, the people of the world, are beginning to see that this issue of GW was just hype:
www.canada.com...

Efforts to support global climate-change falls: Poll
Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 27, 2008

PARIS - There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.
.....
Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.

Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend "extra time" on the effort, an eight-point drop.

And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change. That's down from 28 per cent a year ago.

The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren't included in the global study in 2007.

The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.

The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Great find on those poll figures Prof. It looks like truth may well win out after all.

Oh, and a belated HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you and everyone else on ATS as well. I had plenty of gobbler and porker, and more is sitting here daring me to grab a plate. Wish me luck, all, I may be in for a fight.

May everyone have had as good a Thanksgiving as I did.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


First off, I'm ambivalent about the question.
But basing "truth" on public opinion?

reply to post by Phage

But basing "truth" on public opinion?

I'd say more like basing public opinion on truth.

Nothing I have posted on the subject of Global Warming cannot be backed up by science. The majority of what I have posted can be backed up by any good college chemistry/physics textbook. I mean, this is not exactly rocket science. CO2 has specific, understood physical properties that defy the claims made by those who would spread fear through public opinion.

And I will admonish you, as I do everyone, to not take my word for anything. Check out my sources, verify my statements, question me if something doesn't seem right. I will answer you to the best of my knowledge, even if that means the answer is "sorry, I don't really know".

You'll not see that statement by anyone who relies on the words of another, or who bends to the will of the political powers trying to push Global Warming. That's because their knowledge is limited to what is convenient, and their ability to fool you can be compromised should this become known. I have no such concerns, because I am not trying to fool anyone; I want the truth and I will speak the truth, even if someday somehow the truth is revealed to be against my present beliefs.

So do not mistake my joy at the poll numbers for a political agenda. It is joy at a non-political agenda, the agenda of truth.

TheRedneck

About CO2.

Earth's atmosphere contains roughly (by molar content/volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, a variable amount (average around 1%) water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and traces of hydrogen, helium, and other "noble" gases (and of volatile pollutants).

From the wiki pedia entry on atmosphere. carbon dioxide accounts for only .038% of the atmosphere. water vapor is probably the #1 green house gas. that's the one we should really worry about.

reply to post by Phage

First off, I'm ambivalent about the question.
But basing "truth" on public opinion?

Actually, it is an indication that the public is beginning to see the TRUTH as opposed to all of the propaganda that has been pushed by people that have no clue as to what real science is all about. It is people realizing that politicians should keep their mouths shut when they delve into areas that they have no understanding of. It is realizing that truth doesn't come from the mouths of politicians, regardless of the side of an issue that they take. Their words are for one purpose, to advance their agendas, not to advance science. Leave science to people that use the scientific method, not the MSM method.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
[
Actually, it is an indication that the public is beginning to see the TRUTH as opposed to all of the propaganda that has been pushed by people that have no clue as to what real science is all about.

To politicians I would add celebrities.
Only more so.

Here's an interesting article i came across today.

www.topnews.in...

makes me wonder if this starts up again if global warmin is going the way of the dodo.

reply to post by grey580

Prediction time! Since it's going to be kinda hard to keep blaming CO2 for warming temperatures when the temps are cooling, someone wil use this to complain about CO2 now intruding on the pH level of the oceanic depths.

Keep in mind that we have ways right now, this moment, to remove the CO2 from the air. These ways are not receiving any media attention and are being discouraged by organizations like GreenPeace, who claim to be horrified by the present CO2 levels. The whole idea has nothing to do with temperature change or with CO2 even. The only reason CO2 is being attacked is that it is one of only two compounds that are produced from any hydrocarbon that is burned efficiently. The other one is water, which would be kinda hard to convince the public of the evils of.

It's all about money. Carbon credits remove nothing from the air and do nothing to help decrease the amount of CO2 emitted by humans. They do not even include the worst polluters and the fastest-growing economies (China and India). They do put money into the hands of politicians and big business, helping them to maintain control over the population,

Great find, grey!

TheRedneck