The Sun-summer begins. Enjoy it 'cause the Sun-winter is near and it's going to suck

Check this out. Recent threads about the Sun pole flip: SUN stuff went into oblivion without much attention here because of the everyday noise and comets.

in this cycle, the sun’s magnetic poles are out of sync. The sun’s north magnetic pole reversed polarity more than a year ago, giving it the same polarity as the south pole. The delay between the two reversals is unusually long,

src
It's like the summer down here because from now we will enjoy the second part of fading solar maximum.
Everything is fine in short term. After the flip the Sun can still give us some warming for a couple of years and then...
As you can see in the next solar cycle Sun is predicted to have such weak magnetism that there could be no sunspots at all.

Penn and Livingston examined 1500 sunspots and found that the average strength of the magnetic field of the sunspots has dropped from around 2700 gauss to 2000 gauss. (In comparison, the Earth’s magnetic field is below one gauss.) The reasons for the decline are unknown, but Livingston said that if the strength continues to decrease at the same rate it will drop to 1500 gauss by 2016, and below this strength the formation of sunspots appears to be impossible.

src
Weren't you in hope of nice, warm and quick comet doomsday? It seems we can expect very slow death in a frozen, hungry hell. It's time to memorize the phrase: "Landscheidt Minimum". I'm afraid we will hear it a lot.
It sucks

$#!7, I hate cold.

Why would we have a "very slow death" due to a long polar reversal and minimum sun spot activity?

Between 1645 and 1715 was the Maunder Minimum and I don't remember reading about everyone dying:



Not sure why they think this cycle is unusually long (unless I misread the article), in that the average solar cycle is 11.1 years, but that is average. We have had solar cycles as long as 13.7 years and as short as 9.0 years:

List Of Solar Cycles

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a good ice age since I live way down here in the south.

That bad boy is about 4.5 billion years old. Measuring trends of something that old with a graph that's 400 years old almost seems silly. Research is key, that I can agree with --- but to make claims of slow deaths is absurd.

Fun fact 400 years of 4.5 billion years is equal to .00000008%. Not even a blip of a blip on the radar...and that's not even using the graph in the OP.

eriktheawful
Why would we have a "very slow death" due to a long polar reversal and minimum sun spot activity?

Between 1645 and 1715 was the Maunder Minimum and I don't remember reading about everyone dying:

Not sure why they think this cycle is unusually long (unless I misread the article), in that the average solar cycle is 11.1 years, but that is average. We have had solar cycles as long as 13.7 years and as short as 9.0 years:

List Of Solar Cycles

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a good ice age since I live way down here in the south.

Thanks for bringing some sense and reason to another thread that seemed due to go down the doom porn road.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Are you serious? Only in France between 1371-1791 they had 111 famines. However in 1371 a third of european population was already gone. The Maunder Minimum was just coldest part of the Little Ice Age which can be dated to the Baltic Sea freezing up in 1303 or between 1275 and 1300. You have to think in centuries. I didn't say everyone will die in a decade from now but we have seen it happening. Lesser crops, famines, plague, riots, revolutions, wars and you have milions upon milions of dead. The foodprices may be high but they could be insane in a few years.
Just saying

i quit paying attention to meteorologists about the weather and also cosmologists about space weather because they have no idea what's going to happen, their predictions may as well be put in the hoax bin every day and they get paid for this. i think they have about a 10% success factor going for them and i could do better listening to crickets forecast these things.

PapagiorgioCZ
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Are you serious? Only in France between 1371-1791 they had 111 famines. However in 1371 a third of european population was already gone. The Maunder Minimum was just coldest part of the Little Ice Age which can be dated to the Baltic Sea freezing up in 1303 or between 1275 and 1300. You have to think in centuries. I didn't say everyone will die in a decade from now but we have seen it happening. Lesser crops, famines, plague, riots, revolutions, wars and you have milions upon milions of dead. The foodprices may be high but they could be insane in a few years.
Just saying

You said, and I quote from your OP:

Weren't you in hope of nice, warm and quick comet doomsday? It seems we can expect very slow death in a frozen, hungry hell. It's time to memorize the phrase: "Landscheidt Minimum". I'm afraid we will hear it a lot.
It sucks

Who is "we" ? The world? Africa? China? The USA? France?

You are alluding to the entire world. Even during the time periods you are talking about, the entire world was not freezing to death. The entire population was not starving to death.

Things may have been bad here and there, and all through history there have been areas were people starve right up through modern times of now.

The difference between now, and the time periods that you are quoting is: we're a lot more advanced than we were then. We have the ability to adapt better.

Hard times ahead? Maybe.

Doomsday ahead?

Not for me, even if there ends up being mile high ice in New York city.........

reply to post by eriktheawful


In today's world it's naive. Freeze europe for a year and you will see people dying from it in China or Africa.

PapagiorgioCZ
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

In today's world it's naive. Freeze europe for a year and you will see people dying from it in China or Africa.

Yes.

But it's not "doomsday". It's not the end of the world.

It's "naive" to think that.

Not a doomsday but it won't be nice when it slowly hits the fan with all other stuff on the edge right?

From climate depot, dated 4th Dec.2013, Arctic ice returns to 2003 level.
Global sea ice is above the 1981-2010 mean by 600,000 sq. km.
I get daily updates, lots of stuff to think about, what above means to humans? I have no idea, to me it seems those areas are colder than 'usual'.

PapagiorgioCZ
Not a doomsday but it won't be nice when it slowly hits the fan with all other stuff on the edge right?

But that's just it: an Ice Age doesn't happen in a blink of an eye.

It's not the same as a large asteroid unspotted suddenly hitting us. Or a super volcano erupting suddenly with little to no warning. Or a massive earthquake......or a tornado.

If the climate is shifting into a Ice Age, it will take time. Even if it is simply a short 50 year minimum happening, it still takes time to enter that phase.

Time to prepare. Time to move. Time to get ready for it. IF it happens.

It's a slow process, and unlike someone from the 1600's, we'll see it coming much faster. We also have many more resources to call up on than they did, and much more technology to keep warm, safe, and preserve food. We even have the ability to grow things when it get's too cold for food to normally grow.

Worst I can expect? A more temperate climate.......and a end to the damn fire ants! Hooray!

reply to post by eriktheawful


Nah, only few or rich are able to migrate now. Do you suppose to evacuate a whole nation to the south? Or to grow wheat in greenhouses? The poor majority will just eat overprized junkfood and spend the rest of their money on heating. You don't need a snowball type ice age to die during 20 year long solar minimum.
We have this predictiion based on Sun observations and I can't see any preparations anywhere. There won't be any.
They will keep CO2 business runing long after our assses were frozen.

eriktheawful
Not sure why they think this cycle is unusually long (unless I misread the article), in that the average solar cycle is 11.1 years, but that is average. We have had solar cycles as long as 13.7 years and as short as 9.0 years:

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a good ice age since I live way down here in the south.

Imagine green Africa. Full of Chinese.
I think you read it wrong. It's the time between south pole flip and notrh pole flip that seems to be unusually long.

reply to post by iamhobo

iamhobo
That bad boy is about 4.5 billion years old. Measuring trends of something that old with a graph that's 400 years old almost seems silly. Research is key, that I can agree with --- but to make claims of slow deaths is absurd.

Fun fact 400 years of 4.5 billion years is equal to .00000008%. Not even a blip of a blip on the radar...and that's not even using the graph in the OP.

edit on 5-12-2013 by iamhobo because:

Yes, I hope it's inaccurate and that it will rise to some normal numbers.


reply to post by pikestaff

pikestaff
From climate depot, dated 4th Dec.2013, Arctic ice returns to 2003 level.
Global sea ice is above the 1981-2010 mean by 600,000 sq. km.
I get daily updates, lots of stuff to think about, what above means to humans? I have no idea, to me it seems those areas are colder than 'usual'.

It could also mean that there is more heat thus moisture. You can easily blame global warming or undersea volcanoes.

The question is - how do we adapt when most of our public policy seems to be gearing us up for a climate that's going the other way? If this prediction is correct, and I see more and more scientists starting to echo this all the time, then gearing our public policy toward a society that expects to fry is a bit wrong and could cause all sorts of problems.

It would be a shame if we kill ourselves through pig-headedness rather than nature actually doing it.

12 flags and no-one can see it on the main page and connect the dots? I still think it's a major news. Remember last winter in Russia?
This winter arrived with spectacular storm of the decade in Europe. In November I thought this winter could be pretty warm and maybe quite snowy because of solar maximum but I'm not very sure about it anymore.


reply to post by ketsuko

ketsuko
The question is - how do we adapt when most of our public policy seems to be gearing us up for a climate that's going the other way? If this prediction is correct, and I see more and more scientists starting to echo this all the time, then gearing our public policy toward a society that expects to fry is a bit wrong and could cause all sorts of problems.

It would be a shame if we kill ourselves through pig-headedness rather than nature actually doing it.

You nailed it!

reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ

It's the time between south pole flip and notrh pole flip that seems to be unusually long

I am too lazy to find the answers myself. so,...

1- where are the magnetic lines of force terminating if not at the N pole? the sun is currently monopole?

2- does the strength of the magnetic flux affect the radiation density output? are we really to expect lower temperatures as a result of this? that seems strange to me for some reason. nevertheless, this is already the most severe winter we've had (in Utah) in many many years.

reply to post by tgidkp


It's more that intensity of the activity. The number of sunspots counted indicate the intensity of the solar activity and output. They look dark because they are incredibly hot. They measure the intensity of a solar cycle is in part based on the number of observed sunspots. That last cycle was rather weak in terms of sunspots and the next cycle doesn't promise to pick up. It actually promises to be weaker.

As to whether or not we're looking at a prolonged period of lesser activity from the sun? No one knows for sure, but there are more and more scientists who are starting to whisper about that very possibility.