Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1 Earth approaching sunspot records 
    Earth approaching sunspot records

    COREY JONES/THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

    Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence, sifts through graphs of data in explaining why he believes solar activity may have greater impacts on global temperatures than previously thought.

    Updated September 21, 2009 at 12:50am
    The average person may not associate coolness with the sun.

    The sun releases energy through deep nuclear fusion reactions in its core and has surface temperatures as hot as 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA's Web site.

    Not cool at all.

    But the sun's recent activity, or lack thereof, may be linked to the pleasant summer temperatures the midwest has enjoyed this year, said Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence.

    The sun is at a low point of a deep solar minimum in which there are little to no sunspots on its surface.

    In July through August, 51 consecutive days passed without a spot, one day short of tying the record of 52 days from the early 1900s.

    As of Sept. 15, the current solar minimum ranks third all-time in the amount of spotless days with 717 since 2004. There have been 206 spotless days in 2009, which is 14th all-time. But there are still more than 100 days left in the year, and Perry expects that number to climb.

    Perry, who studies sunspots and solar activity in his spare time, received an undergraduate degree in physics at Kansas State University and a Ph.D in physics and astronomy at The University of Kansas. He also has spent time as a meteorologist.

    A sunspot, Perry explains, is a location on the sun's surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. When there are more sunspots, the sun's surface becomes more dynamic and an opposite effect takes place, releasing more heat and energy when other parts of the sun become hotter.

    A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process. Perry says the current solar minimum could continue into 2010.

    "There's a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year," Perry said.

    Perry said there is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures. The year without a summer, which was 1816, was during a grand minimum in 1800 to 1830 when Europe became cooler, Perry said. Another grand minimum was in 1903 to 1913.
    It looks the Almanac may have the last laugh this year.

    CJOnline
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Bush must have done something to the sun! :mad:
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    31
    Anthropic global climate change is being masked by natural processes such as the weather.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by pssvr View Post
    Anthropic global climate change is being masked by natural processes such as the weather.
    are you being serious are sarcastic?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    31
    That's a good question. I would think that anyone who says that would have to be sarcastic, if I didn't know for a fact that some aren't. :(
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by pssvr View Post
    That's a good question. I would think that anyone who says that would have to be sarcastic, if I didn't know for a fact that some aren't. :(
    well I ask because we have our Goricle worshipers here at CU and I'd kinda like to know firmly where you stand. Are you a memeber of the Infallible Church of Al Gore Global Warming Extremism? Or are you a rational thinking person who recognizes that man has nothing to do with global 'climate change?'
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    31
    I believe it is distinctly possible that industrialization has had a substantial detrimental effect on the long-term health of the Earth's climate and life. Unfortunately, I believe this (possible) threat is being sorely ignored because the people who worry about it refuse to approach it in a scientific fashion (see my statements above) and the people who don't worry about it can't be moved to worry about it because they (rightfully) perceive it as a religion.

    The quantity of heat radiated per unit time by a gas that contains internal thermal energy is defined by a black-body radiation function, in which there is incorporated a constant of proportionality specific to the gas itself. This constant is different for different gases.

    A body which is heated by (approximately) a constant source of energy per unit time, such as the sun, will need to radiate that same quantity of heat per unit time in order to maintain an equilibrium temperature. Thus it is a fact that, if you change the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, you change the equilibrium temperature of the Earth.

    The next logical questions to address are: How much does it change? What are the consequences of that change? If the consequences are severe, what can we do about it? It is in answering these questions that Al Gore and the Liberal Army fall to pieces. They don't seem particularly concerned about giving good mathematical models to decide how much the temperature changes. Instead they let computer simulations produce strange figures that don't seem to be sensibly connected to any particular equations or laws. Then they report consequences that don't logically follow from the temperature change. (For example, they say there will be more desert areas - but geologic history shows that hotter climate equals more rain). Then they take a variety of ridiculous steps to try to prevent it that don't actually address the problem. (Socialism and heavy taxation of things that have little to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,883
    It's a scam sam!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •