Slashdot Mirror
Sunspots May Be Different During This Solar Minimum
PhreakOfTime writes "According to Bill Livingston and Matt Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, sunspot magnetic fields are waning. The two respected solar astronomers have been measuring solar magnetism since 1992. Their technique is based on Zeeman splitting of infrared spectral lines in radiation emitted by iron atoms in the vicinity of sunspots. Extrapolating their data (PDF) into the future suggests that sunspots could completely disappear within decades." To motivate their interest the researchers mention the Maunder Minimum, which occurred beginning in 1645 and coincided with the coldest part of the so-called "Little Ice Age." Sunspot counts during this period were as low as 1/1,000 of the numbers seen in modern times.
So, we're back to the pre-global warming "We're due another ice-age" 1970s doom-mongering eh?
Never mind, since then, we've inadvertantly added a few blankets. We'll be fine.
At least until the ice-age ends. Then we'll be really in trouble.
Extrapolating? Sounds like a job for Randall Munroe! http://xkcd.com/605/
Some look at ice core samples. Others count sunspots. This suggests that we will have "lower than average global temperatures". Call me a heretic, but I think that we get better data from counting sun spots.
It doesn't add up, and that is where the controversy lies. If there is proof that humans are causing global warming, it should be easy to show. However, if the Earth's temperature changes as a result of uncontrollable events happening at the sun, then we need to take that into consideration.
The controversy is very important, and having a calm, level-headed debate where both sides of the issue can discuss the topic without getting shouted down as "unscientific" (sunspot theorists) or "religious crackpots" (human-caused warming theorists) is just as important. Evidence is what will decide this one way or the other, but in order to have clear evidence, we must be able to express our theories in a respectful and open scientific environment. This is why we must teach the controversy.
I don't see what's "unscientific" about claiming that low numbers of sunspots cause global cooling. Fewer sunspots mean less energy from the sun. Although the spot is relatively cool, the area around it is very much hotter.
If there is proof that humans are causing global warming, it should be easy to show
Why should it be easy? That's part of the problem. The Earth is not a pan on a cooker that just gets hotter when you turn up the gas and cools down when you turn it down. The Earth is a complex web of cycles and equilibria that we don't completely understand.
Heck, stick some ice, water and salt in the pan, clamp on a slightly leaky lid and even that becomes non-trivial - and that's peanuts alongside the Earth.
Global warming (or not) is always going to be a guessing game: if you want irrefutable proof, wait 100 years and see whether Bangladesh is still there. Until then, its a risk/benefit analysis, not a scientific study.
What is known is that basic physics says that increasing CO2 levels in an atmosphere will increase the proportion of solar heat retained by the planet: that much can be proven in the lab. Anybody who rejects AGW needs to come up with some theory that explains why that magically won't happen in the real world. Instead, they're exploiting the fact that its very, very difficult to predict how that extra heat will translate into temperature and climate changes. Sadly, I suspect that there are those on both sides of the argument who don't even know that heat is not the same thing as temperature...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Uh, no, it doesn't. The trend line for sunspots on that chart, peaked in 1960, and have been on a declining trend ever since. Meanwhile temperatures (on that chart) have been on the upswing.
Solar variations over the past 20 years should have had a cooling effect, but instead we've seen warming. Solar variations are not the main driver of the climate change we are currently experiencing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood