Notices
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Sun spot cycle is fizzling

  1. #1 Sun spot cycle is fizzling 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    The rest of this sunspot cycle, which is supposed to peak in 2013, might be less intense than expected and the next one as well. Claims that we're heading towards a Maunder Minimum repeat, which was nearly a century of almost no sun spots and less solar irradiation, are premature.

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre...mate-sunspots/


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Sun spot cycle is fizzling 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The rest of this sunspot cycle, which is supposed to peak in 2013, might be less intense than expected and the next one as well. Claims that we're heading towards a Maunder Minimum repeat, which was nearly a century of almost no sun spots and less solar irradiation, are premature.

    http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre...mate-sunspots/
    Well, you know my take. I have believed and still do, that we have started a cooling phase of the climate cycle.

    Less intense than expected? There are those who have predicted almost nothing, and nothing for the next cycle. Only time will tell.

    I miss Global warming.

    have you seen this before?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Sun spot cycle is fizzling 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    have you seen this before?
    No. Seems to be a empirical equation rather than based in physical theory.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Sun spot cycle is fizzling 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    have you seen this before?
    No. Seems to be a empirical equation rather than based in physical theory.
    All theories start from someones idea.

    I think it's something to be considered as possible and not just blown off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I did consider it. And while I fully realize that development of hypothesis usually start with some recognition of a pattern there's much more.

    In this case the equation completely fails to match 2 out of 9 minimums in sun spots and doesn't match actual recent actual sunspot observations such as that shown below:

    So with marginal pattern matching to observation and as yet not underlying physical mechanisms to explain it brought forth or proof that the curve is based on any physical model, how much credence should I give it? Hmmm. Not that much.

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    The way I see it, it is a good explanation of two primary cycles. Of course, the amplitude and even time can alter somewhat of the two. I wouldn't expect a simple mathematical model to match reality. Would you? Nobody is saying it is the only two factors in solar output either. Then of course, sunspot activity and solar intensity aren't necessarily coupled in a linear fashion either. Let's also not forget that cosmic rays from the sun aren't necessary locked to total output either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The way I see it, it is a good explanation of two primary cycles. .
    That's the problem: IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN anything. While curve fitting is an interesting first step in analysis of observations and might bring some inkling of actual causes so far in this thread there hasn't been a hint of physical explanation for the pattern. Taking a cue from the FSM cite, you might as well have put up, a pirates vs. sunspot cycle which would actually have fit closer over the past couple hundred years than the curve you presented.

    In my own field what you are doing is saying that fitting, lets say, an annual curve that shows a surge in spring thunderstorms as an explanation of thunderstorms. It would be a completely wrong statement. To get to an actual explanation you'd have to examine what happens in the spring such as cold air aloft, strong upper level dynamics, orthographically driven lows in the upper plains that drive long fetches of warming and moistening air over the Gulf of Mexico and Southern plains producing moist adiabatic instability etc. And that would be a superficial beginning of an explanation.

    Since we are in the astronomy sub-forum perhaps some expert in solar dynamics will come along and at least blaze some markers and summarize some actual research about the sun (and stars) and related models.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    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
  •