Slashdot Mirror


Sunspots Return

We're emerging from the longest, deepest sunspot drought since 1913 (we discussed its depths here) with the appearance of a robust group of sunspots over the weekend. Recently we discussed a possible explanation for the prolonged minimum. The Fox News article quotes observer Michael Buxton of Ocean Beach, Calif.: "This is the best sunspot I've seen in two years." jamie found a NASA site where you can generate a movie of the recent sunspot's movement — try selecting the first image type and bumping the resolution to 1024. The magnetic field lines are clearly visible.

23 of 276 comments (clear)

  1. wow. by NotWithABang · · Score: 5, Funny

    "This is the best sunspot I've seen in two years."

    ... MAN does this guy need to get laid.

    --

    ... I must be new here.
    1. Re:wow. by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't we all, man, don't we all...

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
  2. Re:Oh sure... by mkiwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know it's popular here to say everything that comes from Fox News is complete bullshit, but maybe just once and a while they have a good article. We should be thankful for that.

  3. CQ DX by Nethead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CQ DX here we come! Time to hang wire and pound brass!

    73, w7com

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  4. Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible. by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Very strange, as magnetic field lines are entirely imaginary.

    I guess you've never played with magnets and iron filings?

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  5. Well, now we'll know. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw the tag but haven't seen this explicitly mentioned yet: one theory is that lack of sunspots causes Earth to warm up. (There is a very strong negative correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth.)

    Maybe now we'll find out who's right.

    1. Re:Well, now we'll know. by mordors9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You guys with your wacky theories that the Sun may affect our temperatures..

    2. Re:Well, now we'll know. by Nautical+Insanity · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is a very strong negative correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth.

      Aha! So global warming is causing the sunspots to disappear!

    3. Re:Well, now we'll know. by radtea · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are some interesting data available on Earth's albedo (reflectivity): http://earth.myfastforum.org/sutra1069.php Check out the linked sources, in particular.

      Summary: there is some evidence that Earth's albedo has decreased by as much as 2% (absolute, almost 10% relative) in the past twenty years. A decrease in albedo means less visible light is being reflected by the planet, implying that more is being absorbed, which would tend to increase planetary heat content.)

      A 2.0% variation in albedo is huge: over twice the effect of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases combined (6.8 W/m**2 vs about 5 W/m**2). However, because much of the change is due to changes in cloud cover, one must also account for the changes in infrared absorption from different kinds of clouds, which makes a head-to-head comparison tricky. However, while the effect of different types of cloud cover can reduce the effect of albedo variations, the residual is still as large or larger than current estimates of human greenhouse gas contributions to climate forcing.

      Final grain of salt: albedo is a physically meaningful term, unlike "global average temperature", but it is still very tricky to measure, and therefore these results should be taken with a grain of salt. However, the magnitude of the effect is such that it is difficult--but not impossible--to imagine it not having a pretty major influence on climate.

      Cloud cover maybe correlated with cosmic ray flux, which may be correlated with sunspot activity.

      Based on the data we have, it appears Earth's albedo has been anomalously low in the past decade or more, and may now be popping back up to something closer to the long term average (0.315 as opposed to as low as 0.305 in the past decade). If that is the case, then we can expect to see a pronounced drop in "global average temperature" in the next few years.

      If that happens, then climate forcing due to albedo variation is going to start looking pretty plausible as a significant cause of the high "global average temperatures" seen in the past decade.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re:Well, now we'll know. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I saw the tag but haven't seen this explicitly mentioned yet: one theory is that lack of sunspots causes Earth to warm up. (There is a very strong negative correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth.

      Nope. People have been looking for correlations between sunspots and weather for years, but never found much. If there's a correlation, it's weak. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php

      To the extent that there's any correlation, however, it tends to the the opposite of what you said-- positive correlation between sunspots and temperature, not negative. The "Maunder Minimum" period of very few or no sunspots occurred about the same time as the "Little Ice Age" of cold temperatures. (But note that a single period of low temperatures ocurring during a period of low sunspots, however extended, does not mean statistically significance).

      If that correlation were indeed true, then the recent solar minimum would have been correlated with low temperatures, and hence would have been masking some of the effect of global warming-- in other words, that greenhouse-effect warming is actually occurring to a greater extent than the data shows.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  6. Re:What I'd like to know is... by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ever wonder why your parents told you not to look directly at the sun?

    IT'S NAKED

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  7. Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible. by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, the magnetic field is real but invisible. Magnetic field lines, on the other hand, are simply a mechanism for representing (e.g., on paper) magnetic field orientation and strength. The lines themselves are not real. (Compare with, for example, a topographical map. The height of the earth's surface is real, but the lines on a topographical map are a representation of height; they're not real.)

  8. Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Very strange, as magnetic field lines are entirely imaginary.

    No, they're quite real. Being immaterial aspects of electro-magnetism,
    they are, however, normally invisible. Here, however, you can see the
    superhot plasma flowing along them, much as you can get iron filings
    on a piece of paper to do with an ordinary magnet.

  9. Re:Oh sure... by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who questions the validity of a theory should be heard.

    Anyone who offers valid criticisms of your theory with data to back them up should be heard. Saying anyone who questions a theory should be heard might sound nice in theory, but in reality it means you have a bunch of people throwing out unsubstantiated garbage in order to muddy the waters and further their own agendas, which are rarely motivated by scientific concerns.

  10. It's actually not much of a sunspot group. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go check it out at http://www.solarcycle24.com/

    This guy's everything about the sun that one can track. In particular, he has an image of the sun on the upper left hand corner that shows how pathetic this sunspot group.

    I wouldn't say the sunspot drought is over, until there is sustained progress.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:It's actually not much of a sunspot group. by NotNormallyNormal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a space physicist, I agree. Certainly we have seen an increase in the number of sunspots in the last month but most die out rapidly. However, other solar activity, such as corona holes (of which there are two) are becoming more common. The current set of holes should cause activity at the Earth on or about the 12th of July.

  11. Will it really matter? by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because I betcha that if Congress gets Cap and Trade in place, throw in some Kyoto claims, that in a few years if we see a cooling trend beyond our current one, they will lay claim to proof they were right.

    In other words, the salesmen won. No matter the out come they will claim to have proven themselves. In the end all we get will be more embedded taxes.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  12. Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible. by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, because the field is not uniform the iron filings clump around the actual physical lines. It's the same thing with gravity - the field is not uniform, but concentrated along specific lines protruding out of the earth. Sometimes you get tripped up when you walk through one of the bigger gravitational field lines. Here in Michigan you can clearly feel them when driving your car through them - it feels like the road is all bumpy.

    *end sarcasm*

    The comment that they are imaginary does suggest that the plasma (or something) on the sun somehow concentrates the field much the way iron filings concentrate them. Once you have filings it concentrates the field and you get more filings attached to the end thus creating lines. Similar must occur on the sun or the lines would not be visible.

  13. Man saved Earth? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IIRC, the last time sunspots were at a minimum like this, earth was in the little ice age, and hundreds of millions of people died due to crops freezing, glaciers overrunning towns, disease, etc.

    So maybe we're supposed to be in another little ice age, but all the greenhouse gases warmed the planet and saved us?

    O____O

  14. Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible. by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Magnetic field lines are not really like the lines on a topographic map. The lines of a magnetic field represent paths from high potential to low potential, rather than delineations of equal-potential regions.

    It's more like a river. The river flows perpendicular to the lines on the topographic map, from high to low, and its "line" is quite real, while the lines on the topographic map are not. Thus it is an unfair comparison to say magnetic field lines are "imaginary" in the same sense that contour lines on a map are. You cannot physically demonstrate the contour lines on a map, whereas you can demonstrate (with water or iron filings, as the case may be) a path from high potential to low potential.

    IOW, inasmuch as there is a very real path that a drop of water will take when placed at any specific point on a 3-D surface, there is also a very real path that an electron will follow from a specific starting point in a 3-D electromagnetic field.

    The lines themselves are imaginary, but they are real paths. Of course, there are infinitely many of the paths, densely packed, and so we pick only a few representative paths and call them the "magnetic field lines".

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  15. Re:"The magnetic field lines are clearly visible. by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're no more real than latitude lines. The magnetic field is continuous, it doesn't possess discrete lines. Objects IN the field can form a line, but that is more of a spontaneous symmetry breaking effect... I.E., iron filings could form a hundred distinguishable lines, or a thousand. The filings experiment is neat, but I think it gave millions of schoolkids the idea that there is an actual number of preferred lines running from one end of the magnet to the other.

    A cone doesn't have a finite number of preferred paths down from the top. But if you pour water on the top, the water will run downhill and form a number of discrete streams. That does mean that there are 'lines of gravity'.

  16. Re:Is it just me ? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because local climate suddenly equates to global mean temperature? Huh... go figure...

  17. No implications for the reliability of the IPCC by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since there will of course be a lot of nonsense about this having implications for the reliability of the IPCC's statements on climate change and so on, it is worth posting the following:

    We have direct measurements of incoming and outgoing solar radiation. We have satellites in orbit that detect incoming as well as outgoing radiation of all wavelengths. From these direct measurements we know that the recent change in outgoing radiation is greater than the changes in incoming radiation. We know that the change is in the region of the spectrum where CO2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb radiation the most. We also know from isotopic analysis that a majority of the increase in CO2 concentration is fossil in origin ( fossil fuels are virtually depleted in Carbon 14 since it decays radioactively over periods of several thousand years ), thus excluding the possibility that what we see is a feedback effect from changes in solar activity.

    Thus we more or less know that the sun is not to blame, no matter how poorly we may understand its sunspots, cycles and whatnot. The change in radiation balance is due to neither a direct solar effect nor the type of feedbacks that occur during ice age termination. If either of the two was the case then the isotopic studies would have detected it since the CO2 in oceans and plants have comparable C14 concentrations as the atmosphere. Instead what we see is an increased concentration of fossil carbon in the atmosphere, and together with it a reduction in outgoing infra-red radiation consistent with the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases we emit.