Posted on 10/01/2008 5:54:24 AM PDT by SpinnerWebb
Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age.
As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.
"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."
They'll never admit it. Racism in mortgage lending was to be solved with new regulations. Now that the wheels are coming off, the same politicians are screaming that the problem was deregulation. 180 degrees without even spilling their late.
As long as things are “progressive” toward a global socialist economy, they will say anything and rely on our short memories and lack of a database of past announcements (the latter has changed a little, for now).
Yep, somehow this MUST be Bush’s fault.
Although it started with a long minimum, that sunspot cycle became extremely active, peaking in 1958-59. I didn’t receive my first amateur radio license until 1961, but the sunspot cycle that peaked in ‘58-59 was legendary for radio propagation. (Higher sunspot count correlates with increased ionization of the upper atmosphere, where radio signals are refracted (”skipped”) back to earth, thousands of miles from where they originated.)
Jack
Cheney-Halliburton has been illegally drilling on those spots without congressional approval. That’s why they’re gone now.
We must investigate.
Technically - You’re right: Solar Cycle 25 is due after solar cycle 24 finisghes, and hte “average” sunspot cycle” is 11-13 years. So, by math, solar cycle 25 might come that early “The really crazy part is that Solar Cycle 25 (not due for 11-13 years) is expected to be extremely weak by NASA..”
But solar cycle 24 hasn’t started yet (now, as of Oct 2008 we are still at the minimum zero sunspot activity between cycle 23 and 24), and nobody can predict when cycle 24 will even begin, much less end. Nor how high the peak of cycle 24 will be: It too may be as low as cycle 25 may be.
So, could we face 20-30 years more of cooling? Absolutely.
And I would bet on the side of 28-36 years of cooling - before temperatures even get BACK to where they are now. All previous cooling cycles this century have had 26-30 years of cooling, 5-10 years of flat, and 26-30 years of increase again, 5-10 years of flat, .....
NASA looks at the circulating currents underneath the surface. Apparently the speed of those plasma currents relates fairly well with the intensity of the next solar cycle.
Back either ‘81 or ‘82 I was in Bavaria and caught a skip out of Boston of all places. And to top it off the guy was on a CB!!
I’ve lived in FL for 16 years. We usually get our first cold front of the year sometime during the first half of October, usually like clockwork from the 7th - 15th. Now, granted this time of year a “cold front” means that instead of 89 degrees it will be 82 degrees :) But still.
This year it came a week ago.
Not looking forward to January.
Dang...And I’m taking the family to Sarasota over Christmas...Was hoping that global warming would really kick in over that time frame.
LOL! Cross your fingers. :-) I remember a cold New Years but not a cold Christmas.
Sun spot ping
Really?
Why haven't we heard more about them then?
Pinatubo was ALL over the network news.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
If only we had politicians with spotless records and a sun without....
An Exhausting War on Emissions
Public Employee Pensions Endangered by State Officials Playing Global Warming Politics
British Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law
Jobs more important than climate change action
Global warming on Free Republic
Pinatubo pushed sulfur 20 miles high, that's what blocks the sun. The Chilean volcano was 6 or 7, don't know about the other.
Because they weren’t as powerful as Pinatubo (not high enough to cause climate changes).
“Pinatubo pushed sulfur 20 miles high, that’s what blocks the sun. The Chilean volcano was 6 or 7, don’t know about the other.”
The Chile blast had a larger cloud than Pinatubo - but apparently the SO2 amounts wasn’t too high (I hadn’t seen anything on that until today). The Aleutian blast released over 1,000,000 tons of SO2, but that was still supposedly only 1/20 of Pinatubo’s output.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354282,00.html
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1987
So, the volcanism probably won’t be too much of a factor...
yep, those extra miles make a difference. The sulfur spreads nicely and hangs around in the stratosphere for a year or two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.