Posted on 12/18/2007 5:40:18 AM PST by Red Badger
I just knew this thread would be a hoot! LOL
Flip a coin.
Now, add to your theory the evidence of a lessening magnetic field (N-pole/S-pole switch coming) and you have much more of the solar wind hitting earth during the sun spot maximum.
I'm not against it, but wouldn't cite it as a reference about science. Although, what can you trust on the web now?( other than me, of course)
that’s right!
2012’s when the lost tribe of romneyites
emerges in ol’ mexico.
I imagine their predictions are just as valid as our hurricane predictions are.........
I think that the references to the “equator” are merely pointing out the location of the spots in question, i.e., above or below the “equator”. Then they get down to the individual points by saying, “at 30.25 degrees latitude” or something like that. Since there is no permanent, fixed reference point on the surface, there is no longitude assignments for location, and even the sunspots themselves move around. Even different parts of the sun rotate at different speeds..........
I seem to remember having read that now that you mention it. Thanks for patiently explaining all of this to me.
It’s not my theory. I think it was scientists in Sweden or Denmark this year that showed the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation.
There are also lots of different solar cycles and as you mention the effect on the Van Allen belt around the Earth as the poles switch places. But the pole switching is on a much longer timescale than ice ages, isn’t it ? With all these different cycles interacting, the model must get pretty hairy. There are so many really large processes out there that making man’s CO2 emissions the culprit for global warming seems ridiculous.
Two hundred and 50 years ago was the end of a number of decades when no sun spots were identified by either European or Chinese astronomers. It has been called the Maunder Minimum, and was in the middle of a period known as The Little Ice Age. Several books have been written about these two topics, and I am sure there is a lot at Google. As the activity builds up again, we may have hotter weather than the past several years. Not a happy thought.
The equator of the sun.
Because we can see sunspots and other features as the sun rotates on it’s axis, we can identify the two poles, and thereby define the equater as the line around the center that is equidistant from the two poles.
Pardon me for using ‘theory’ in the sense that you might infer I disbelieve it.
Your understanding is quite correct. My correlation is that the weakening of earth’s own field amplifies the effect of the solar maximum which sends particles to earth, causing -— probably -— an increased storm cycle.
C02 is a trivial part of the atmospheric problem, selected to suit a self-serving neo-communist movement. Human components of C02 generation are trivial along side the background C02 generation of plant material decomposing.
In a recent plot the solar cycle went through a ‘double maximum’, an event not previously recorded. That would be quite sufficient to cause, with the weakened field native to earth, an increase in storms that alter local environments. Storms transfer huge amounts of energy, and we are simply witnessing that fact.
The simple failure of the other side to acknowledge the history of Greenland, the prior time when the N/W passage was open (Columbus’ charts showed them) the grape & wine production in England (300 years since) The tremendous fertility of Norway that caused the Norse-men to send forth thousands of ships a millenia ago, the painted figures in the Sahara desert that showed it green and lush, the frozen condition of Denmark in 1640, all illustrate the nature of their quest. They are advocating junk science for their personal gain. The old Communist advocates are back as Environmental engineers.
They are simply playing on the psychology of the ‘haves’. People that aren’t struggling for their own survival everyday are easy marks. They have the time and the arrogance to think man’s impact is much greater than it is.
Al Gore will stand up and bluster about “millions of tons of CO2” being added to the atmosphere each day and people think that is a lot. Rarely does somebody mention how insignificant those millions of tons are in comparison to the CO2 coming out of the oceans, decaying plant matter, volcanoes, etc. And the same people that will completely swallow a theory based on an unproven computer model will discount real science in the form of historical and geological record. I really worry that the gullible will drag us down.
Solar magnetic cycles are said to be 11 years, although the full cycle is 22 years.
[Not a happy thought.]
My experience over 50+ years is that extreme winter low temps and heavy snows occur in years with high incidences of sunspots.
Yes I have read about the The Little Ice Age, and personally speaking I would prefer hotter weather than this mini ice age I am experiencing, make my bones ache.
~~AGW ™ ping~~
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.