Thread: Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.

I have heard of this theory before but never actually read about it in depth, you alarmist may just be alarmed by the wrong scenario.


"From the “I hope to God they are flat wrong department”, here is the abstract of a short paper on recent solar trends by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson. It was sent to me by reader Mike Ward."

They write: Sunspot umbral magnetic fields also show systematic temporal changes during the observing period as demonstrated by the sample spectra in Figure 1. The infrared Fe 1564.8 nm is a favorable field diagnostic since the line strength changes less than a factor of two between the photosphere and spot umbra and the magnetic Zeeman splitting is fully resolved for all sunspot umbrae. In a histogram plot of the distribution of the umbral magnetic fields that we observe, 1500 Gauss is the smallest value measured. Below this value photospheric magnetic fields do not produce perceptible darkening. Figure 3 presents the magnetic fields smoothed by a 12 point running mean from 1998 to 2005. The ordinate is chosen so that 1500 G is the minimum. A linear fit to the changing magnetic field produces a slope of 77 Gauss per year, and intercepts the abscissa at 2015. If the present trend continues, this date is when sunspots will disappear from the solar surface.

"Let us all hope that they are wrong, for a solar epoch period like the Maunder Minimum inducing a Little Ice Age will be a worldwide catastrophe economically, socially, environmentally, and morally."


Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″. | Watts Up With That?

The complete paper is worth the effort too.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._sunspots2.pdf

What ridiculous, desperate b.s.

Solar intensity has been low, but cycle 24 will have 90 sunspots, and the next cycle will have sunspots and solar flares.

Watt will try ANYTHING, to get people going, for more CO2 emissions. He just wants to lose human habitat, for some money he gets, maybe from the coal industry.

Yeah, that wouldn't be a fun time.

Keep in mind, though, that zero sunspots doesn't actually mean that huge of a variation in solar output.

Originally Posted by bobgnote

What ridiculous, desperate b.s.

Solar intensity has been low, but cycle 24 will have 90 sunspots, and the next cycle will have sunspots and solar flares.

Watt will try ANYTHING, to get people going, for more CO2 emissions. He just wants to lose human habitat, for some money he gets, maybe from the coal industry.

What's interesting here is you people in the warmer cult have to make everything about C02 and warming of the planet. You can't seem to look at a scientific paper on it's own merit. The guy never mentions your religion, I mean theory. Personally I thought it was an interesting study and if I was the type to panic it would make me do so.A sudden ice age would be far more catastrophic than the gradual warming the earth has been doing since the last big ice age. As the article says, I sure hope he's wrong!

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

[...] Personally I thought it was an interesting study and if I was the type to panic it would make me do so. [...]

You just happened across this "interesting study", which was news four years ago in summer 2008 but sure isn't now, and decided to share it for no other reason than it was interesting? Considering the previous threads you've started in this section I'm sure you'll understand my doubts about your motivation.

So, where are the updates? I'm sure there has been further news since June 2008 and if it was so interesting a topic for you I would think a smart feller like you would have followed up. So what's the status now, four years later? Did the trend continue or not? Should I buy a parka and prepare for another Ice Age? With the temps outside at 80°F @ 7:30 in the morning I'm sure I can get a good deal on one.

Originally Posted by MoSurveyor

You just happened across this "interesting study", which was news four years ago in summer 2008 but sure isn't now, and decided to share it for no other reason than it was interesting? Considering the previous threads you've started in this section I'm sure you'll understand my doubts about your motivation.

So, where are the updates? I'm sure there has been further news since June 2008 and if it was so interesting a topic for you I would think a smart feller like you would have followed up. So what's the status now, four years later? Did the trend continue or not? Should I buy a parka and prepare for another Ice Age? With the temps outside at 80°F @ 7:30 in the morning I'm sure I can get a good deal on one.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg

Seems to have started increasing again right on schedule.

We're halfway through 2012 and the trend is upwards, sawyer, not downwards. Instead of ranting about us darn warmers, maybe you should look at the data yourself. I know this is a new theory to you, but some of us have seen it before and have already gone over this.


It's true that this latest sun cycle has dipped a bit lower than the previous ones, but to decide that this means we're headed for an ice age is premature. Even if the sun did dip to maunder minimum levels, there's a stronger greenhouse effect than last time that happened.

NASA - Solar Cycle Primer

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

What's interesting here is you people in the warmer cult have to make everything about C02 and warming of the planet. You can't seem to look at a scientific paper on it's own merit. The guy never mentions your religion, I mean theory. Personally I thought it was an interesting study and if I was the type to panic it would make me do so.A sudden ice age would be far more catastrophic than the gradual warming the earth has been doing since the last big ice age. As the article says, I sure hope he's wrong!

He's wrong, and so are you.

AGW is science. The Koch Brothers (heard of Charlie and Dave?) funded a study, by Richard Muller, which found AGW science is valid. I don't believe in God. I don't go to church.

You are a ranter, which didn't review solar cycle basics, before posting your bogus, 2008 study.

CO2 is the main forcer, in global climate change. Just because it is the one we can limit by re-greening doesn't mean CO2 is the only temperature forcer, but it is the one you rant about.

We were getting due, for a gradual, 100,000 year decline, in CO2, while temperatures fluctuate, around the decline, in CO2, which global cooling would be accompanied, by re-glaciation. But humans are cooking the planet, burning everything, which will burn, while cutting forests, so they can't respirate CO2.

What sort of nonsense are you ranting? ANY gradual cooling would be WAY easier to adjust to, than a fast warming, which will be even faster than the PETM extinction or P-T extinction. The latter is the leading killer, of all geologic time. We are slated to lose most oceanic species and families, with a lot of land species.

Human habitat will fail, from runaway warming and climate change, while humans are forced inland, to deal with re-volcanism, which can be caused, with more seismic events, when SLR gets too radical, and lunar tides massage plates, faults, and magma chambers.

YOU have the sort of mind, affected by religions, so maybe you should listen, to Benedict, who says anti-AGW skeptics are atheists. Nice try, Pope B.

If you read a study, which says Jesus will come back and do funny things to your butt, would you think that is "interesting?"

There aren't any "sudden" ice ages, unless they are mini-ice ages, caused by the release of a glacial moraine, like Lake Agassiz, which suddenly failed, to form the Great Lakes, the Great Salt Lake, and a global cooling. Look that up. There's a study.

Even with minimal solar intensity and sunspots, even with melting ice, average global temperatures are reaching new high records. So you need to check your BRAIN, which is apparently affected, by any old media, probably including religion or Donald Duck cartoons or alleged studies, made up by some quack.

The planet is heating, the ice will melt, the albedo (reflectivity) will fail, the seas will acidify, the sea level will rise, the seas will warm, to out-gas even more CO2 and CH4, and THEN the seas will warm, so anoxic events will kill anything relative acidity didn't kill. The warmer seas will finish off East Antarctic ice. You and I will be long-dead.

Will surviving humans be smart? DDs, don't mate with each other, or with GREEDIES.

But YOU are the kind of clown, which shot speed and tricked, at bath-houses, just because that is what all your dippy friends were doing, so you all shoved your lethal HIV, past AIDS, into a deadly epidemic. GUESS WHAT! Your bath-houses are closed! So watch TV, if you don't know which "study" to read.

Originally Posted by bobgnote

He's wrong, and so are you.

AGW is science. The Koch Brothers (heard of Charlie and Dave?) funded a study, by Richard Muller, which found AGW science is valid. I don't believe in God. I don't go to church.

You are a ranter, which didn't review solar cycle basics, before posting your bogus, 2008 study.

CO2 is the main forcer, in global climate change. Just because it is the one we can limit by re-greening doesn't mean CO2 is the only temperature forcer, but it is the one you rant about.

We were getting due, for a gradual, 100,000 year decline, in CO2, while temperatures fluctuate, around the decline, in CO2, which global cooling would be accompanied, by re-glaciation. But humans are cooking the planet, burning everything, which will burn, while cutting forests, so they can't respirate CO2.

What sort of nonsense are you ranting? ANY gradual cooling would be WAY easier to adjust to, than a fast warming, which will be even faster than the PETM extinction or P-T extinction. The latter is the leading killer, of all geologic time. We are slated to lose most oceanic species and families, with a lot of land species.

Human habitat will fail, from runaway warming and climate change, while humans are forced inland, to deal with re-volcanism, which can be caused, with more seismic events, when SLR gets too radical, and lunar tides massage plates, faults, and magma chambers.

YOU have the sort of mind, affected by religions, so maybe you should listen, to Benedict, who says anti-AGW skeptics are atheists. Nice try, Pope B.

If you read a study, which says Jesus will come back and do funny things to your butt, would you think that is "interesting?"

There aren't any "sudden" ice ages, unless they are mini-ice ages, caused by the release of a glacial moraine, like Lake Agassiz, which suddenly failed, to form the Great Lakes, the Great Salt Lake, and a global cooling. Look that up. There's a study.

Even with minimal solar intensity and sunspots, even with melting ice, average global temperatures are reaching new high records. So you need to check your BRAIN, which is apparently affected, by any old media, probably including religion or Donald Duck cartoons or alleged studies, made up by some quack.

The planet is heating, the ice will melt, the albedo (reflectivity) will fail, the seas will acidify, the sea level will rise, the seas will warm, to out-gas even more CO2 and CH4, and THEN the seas will warm, so anoxic events will kill anything relative acidity didn't kill. The warmer seas will finish off East Antarctic ice. You and I will be long-dead.

Will surviving humans be smart? DDs, don't mate with each other, or with GREEDIES.

But YOU are the kind of clown, which shot speed and tricked, at bath-houses, just because that is what all your dippy friends were doing, so you all shoved your lethal HIV, past AIDS, into a deadly epidemic. GUESS WHAT! Your bath-houses are closed! So watch TV, if you don't know which "study" to read.

Geeez, and I get infractions for saying someone is being hypocritical or making a joke about brain cells. Must be nice to be a lib in here and say whatever you want.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

Geeez, and I get infractions for saying someone is being hypocritical or making a joke about brain cells. Must be nice to be a lib in here and say whatever you want.

Seems like a friendly one, doesn't he? I'm still trying to figure out what "re-volcanism" is.

Anyway, in light of the fact that solar activity is currently on the rise, how do you see this idea that sunspots may vanish 3 years from now?