Apr 182010
Yowza.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100418.html
What’s happened to our Sun? Last week, it produced one of the largest eruptive prominences ever seen. Pictured above, the prominence erupted in only a few hours and was captured in movie form by NASA’s twin Sun-orbiting STEREO satellites.
Be sure to check out the video on Youtube.
5 Responses to “I guess the Sun has woken”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
No, it has not. Don’t fall for the lies and bullshit from the environazi crowd, solar output has not risen, and from all indications it will remain flat for some time to come.
And don’t get it from youtubes, go to the source.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinode/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/soho/index.html
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
You’ll have to wade through NASA’s user unfriendly pages, it is worth it. Don’t believe any of the crap coming from media and environazis.
> No, it has not. Don’t fall for the lies and bullshit from the environazi crowd
Jeez, who the hell pissed in your corn flakes this morning???
Every time I see this line it pisses me off. Appreciable Solar Output is down. I can dig up the links, all from actual Solar Physicists and Inner Solar System observing astronomers who have been ringing the bell on reduced Solar Output for at least the last 10 years.
Humans are not destroying the “environment”. Damaging it in localized, regional contamination? Yes. Killing the planet? Fuck no.
> Every time I see this line it pisses me off.
Then prepare to be permanently upset. The sun *has* been quiet for a while, with an extended period of few to no sunspots. It now seems to be waking up from that period of relative inactivity.
Putting it in a bit more perspective:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
By actual calander year 2010 has only had 13% or only 15 “spotless” days so far compared to 2009 which had 71% or 260 days without spots.
This article points out we’re (probably) coming out of a deep solar minimum that started around 1995:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/
And along with this while we may see sunspot activity above that for 2009, activity isn’t being predicted to become “regular” again until around 2012-2015 and THAT will be far lower than “normal” which while it excites solar scientist is more than a little ‘bit’ worrying for scientists overall. (ie: that “peak” in the second graph is expected to be MUCH closer to the bottom theoretical curve than the “average” assumed curve that is shown and FAR below the upper theoretical curve)
I suspect the MAJOR thing that cheeses 2Hotel9 off is that the vast majority of “Global Warming is People’s fault” adhereints refuse to believe that the Sun has any ‘effect’ on Earths climate and they seize on ANY reports of increased solar activity as “proof” that it’s all mans fault.
So… it tends to become a bit of a ‘knee-jerk-reaction’ when some see a title such as this one to INFORM as fast as possible to keep the information in perspective :o)
THE biggest issue with the sunspot cycle and solar output is we’ve ONLY had the ability accuratly measure the corrilation between the two within the last 30 years or so which of COURSE means (to the “respected opposition” :o) that there is a complete lack of data “depth” and so any corrilation should be ignored…
Even discounting the thermal-flywheel effect (also, I might add, dismissed as “observer-bias” by the “other-side” unless of course it can be used to support THEIR argument :o) of the overall Earth environment the hardest point to get across in the discussion (IF one is lucky enough to find someplace where it CAN be discussed that is :o) is that solar output and Earths overall temperature follow each other in a rather DELAYED cycle which can be shown to PROVE that atmospheric CO2 is a negligiable factor in temperatures. (In fact water-vapor has an order of magnitude more effect that CO2 which means IT should have been the “golden-bullet” of climate change! But somehow the “fact” that burning fossil fuels produces “water-vapor” at all is being ignored :o)
So far the Solar output during Solar Cycle-24 has been an average of 83% of “normal” since the cycle offically started in 2008 (and it was ‘late’ getting started at that) and will last till 2018/2019. This means that the Earth’s “thermal-flywheel” WON’T be recharging and somewhere around 2012-2015 (and I kinda “shudder” ever time I think that “2012” managed to fall into that time frame for the rather “obvious” reason :o, but the “peak” activity period for SC-24 is still looking to be around 2013) we’re going to start seeing pretty obvious below normal temperatures.
(http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm)
If one wishest to give ‘credit’ for anything about the “Political” global warming debate and the carbon reduction demands the ‘bright’ side becomes the fact that there is no way in HELL we can begin to ‘reduce’ carbon emmisions before we hit the lowest part of the temperature cycle that we seem to be in.
Recalling of course that we’re following a “theoretical” cycle because predicting a particular cycles “activity” level has proven impossible more than a year ahead of time. The major reason that this doesn’t “Prove” that global-COOLING is bunk is because the prediction of the OVERALL cycle variance is historic and well documented and while accurate solar activity prediction is next to impossible the average-trend is fairly easy to follow.
In other words the NEXT cycle SC-25 is supposed to be MORE active than SC-24 it will be LESS active at peak than previous cycles. And the cycle of lower activity OVERALL looks to continue if the sun follows historic patterns.
(As shown in the second graph activity and peak was predicted to be about HALF that of SC-23, and we have already noted that the current yearly solar activity is going to be worse than predicted by the graph. Imagine the “next” cycle peak being only half or less of THIS cycles peak. Repeat as needed to follow historic “cycles” of warm-Earth/cold-Earth relations)
So the data supports a downward trend in solar activity and output for the next serveral cycles possibly leading to another “little-ice-age” within the next 50 years. (Panic NOW! Avoid the RUSH! :o)
The more worrying data-point though is that we’re about 10,000 years over-due for a long-term drop in solar output, which would mean a REAL ice-age instead. But we can’t be SURE which historic cycle we’re following until we get closer to the middle of the CURRENT cycle! As to why THAT is worrisome, well it really means we won’t KNOW if we’re in a “mini” ice age or a “real” ice age until there is a serious uptick in solar activity CONTINUOSLY over a cycle OR the glaciers start crawling across the Great Lakes.
Randy