Obama May Block Out the Sun to End Global Warming (NOT a joke)

[TheHouseMan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513242,00.html

Obama May Block Sun's Rays to End Global Warming

WASHINGTON —  The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching.

Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously.

The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program.

The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions.

So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it.

At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

------------

Comment from me: Well, at least this makes some sense, since the sun is responsible for any warming in the world.

[AzNsQuAd27]

GOOD LOOKS i needed this article for my change agent teacher.   

[Puff1]

GOOD LOOKS i needed this article for my change agent teacher.   

LOL

[fatguyinspandex]

So since the earth is cooling on its own. im sure they will say they did something and take credit for it.??

[Unintelligable Name]

"May" block out the sun?

f**k that they already are, 2 days ago I had 8 parallel chemtrails across my sky then for the entire afternoon it was 90 degrees out but with huge cloud cover.

Those crazy bastards are trying to start a new Ice Age!

[voodo0]

So since the earth is cooling on its own. im sure they will say they did something and take credit for it.??

that's what I was thinking.

[David Rothscum]

In other words, they're finally coming public with the chemtrails that those crazy conspiracy theorists have been talking about for almost a decade now.

[cathiasus]

"May" block out the sun?

f**k that they already are, 2 days ago I had 8 parallel chemtrails across my sky then for the entire afternoon it was 90 degrees out but with huge cloud cover.

Those crazy bastards are trying to start a new Ice Age!

+100, I think you have something here. When I'm out and about with chemtrails in the air, I definitely feel more radiation than normal, suxor.

[releasethebonds]

AP Newsbreak: Obama looks at climate engineering
By SETH BORENSTEIN – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[gEEk squad]

Not surprising. the CFR had a big article in Foreign Affairs last month about Geo-Engineering, which meant pumping sulfur into the atmosphere.

The AP article calls it "pollution particle," but its obviously going to be sulfur.

[uwaf]

Oh stop it you conspiracy nuts, Govt loves us. And anyway if you don't like it here in the USA, be my guest. This is the best Country in the World to live in.

[ES]

Yesterday we got snow in southern PA. This is going to backfire bigtime. People may be ignorant about a lot of things but everybody can see what the weather is like.

[Monkeypox]

"But we do know it was us that scorched the Sky"

- Morpheus, The Matrix

[Monkeypox]

"But we do know it was us that scorched the Sky"

- Morpheus, The Matrix

[Unintelligable Name]

I definitely feel more radiation than normal, suxor.

Clouds reflect most sunlight from reaching the planet, but trap internal heat.



Picture says that lower clouds reflect more sunlight than higher altitude clouds. Wonder what altitude they are spraying at... 

[Monkeypox]

We THINK that MAYBE the Earth is warming, and MAYBE it's caused by human activities on the planet, so let's start mucking around with things we don't understand and possibly make things worse.

Great plan.

[rio]

LOLOLOL 

[creat3d]

Chemtrails are going mainstream! With a big, shiny, smiley faced logo...

Clouds we can believe in!

[jflack]

Chemtrails are going mainstream! With a big, shiny, smiley faced logo...

Clouds we can believe in!

This is BS! 

"shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort."

Yes, these are chemtrails.  How long have they preconditioned the public for this?  10 years at the very least.

[jflack]

John P. Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

On 20 December 2008, President-elect Barack Obama named Holdren as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST

Holdren earned a bachelor's degree from MIT in 1965 and a PhD in plasma physics[3] from Stanford University in 1970. He taught at the University of California, Berkeley for more than two decades. His work has focused on global environmental change, energy technologies and policies, nuclear proliferation, and science and technology policy[4].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[jflack]

John P. Holdren is a joke with junk science.  Just reading his article exposes him as a fraud and shows that his science is worthless.

The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.'s Last Chance to Lead
McCain or Obama can end shameful U.S. foot-dragging and rally the world against climate change

The ongoing disruption of the earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable. Under midrange projections for economic growth and technological change, the planet’s average surface temperature in 2050 will be about two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than its preindustrial value. The last time the earth was that warm was 130,000 years ago, and sea level was four to six meters higher than today. No one knows how long it will take sea level to “catch up” with such an increase; it could be several centuries, or it could be less.

Even with uncertainties, there is reason to believe that tipping points into unmanageable changes will become much more probable for increases larger than two degrees C. To achieve a better-than-even chance of not exceeding that figure, human emissions must start to decline soon, falling to about half of today’s level by 2050 and further thereafter.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important of civilization’s emissions and the most difficult to reduce. About 80 percent comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas; most of the rest comes from deforestation in the tropics. The largest emitters in 2006 were (in descending order) the U.S., China, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, India, Japan and Germany. (Numbers are not final, but China appears to have passed the U.S. in 2007.)

There is no way to keep the temperature increase under two degrees C unless these big emitters start taking serious action almost immediately. The U.S. and the other industrial nations on the list have an obligation to lead this transition. They have caused most of the buildup of gases to date, and they have the largest per capita emissions, the greatest wealth and the most technology. And they agreed to their responsibility to lead in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, to which the U.S. and 191 other countries are parties.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has wasted the last eight years. It should have been taking decisive action but engaged instead in systematic understatement of the danger: it has made ridiculous assertions that the U.S. should not do anything that China does not agree to do and has stubbornly insisted that no action should be taken to improve climate change “if it hurts the economy.” This last rationalization translates into “if it costs anybody any money” and is roughly akin to saying that the country should not defend itself against terrorism because that costs money.

There is now reason to hope, however, that this country is about to shift from shameful foot-dragging into the leadership role that the world needs and expects. Such a transition has been made possible by the convergence of several factors: a stream of new science showing an accelerating pace of climate change and its impacts; the everyday experience of people witnessing the change around them (and seeing it on the evening news); the compelling portrayals of what is happening and why, such as Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God’s creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national security).

The impending political tipping point is evident in nationwide opinion polls and in the climate policies already embraced by more than 850 towns and cities and 32 states. It is also manifest in the rapid transition of attitudes among corporations, which have come to see climate-change mitigation and adaptation not only as necessities but as opportunities. When top executives from General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy and Exelon testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in favor of federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, this surely was the equivalent of the plastic thermometer in the turkey popping up to indicate that it’s done.

Presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama have committed to early enactment of mandatory, economy-wide restrictions on emissions, implemented through tradable permits and designed to reduce emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal would move the U.S. ahead of the European Union, which since 2005 has had a permit system covering only half its CO2 sources. In my judgment, if the U.S. finally takes the lead, the E.U. will quickly adopt an economy-wide approach. So will Japan, and probably Russia.

Will the Chinese, Brazilians, Indonesians and Indians join such an effort? The conventional wisdom has been “no”—that they care more about economic growth than climate change. But I believe the answer is rapidly changing to “yes.” These developing countries have figured out that the disruption of global climate is already harming them. Changes in monsoon patterns are unleashing floods and droughts and hurting agricultural productivity in China and India. The Tibetan glaciers that control water flows in the great rivers of both those countries are disappearing at an alarming rate. The rain forests in Brazil and Indonesia are drying and, increasingly, burning.

These major emitters also understand that the problem—now their problem—cannot be solved without their participation. China and India have created advisory and policy bodies at the highest levels of government to deal with climate and energy, and they are cooperating with industrial countries to create climate-friendly energy options. Brazil’s leadership has taken a newly positive stance on international measures to reduce deforestation rates and to better enforce its national deforestation laws.

The encouraging attitudes were on full display at the December 2007 meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. One spokesperson after another from developing countries averred that once the U.S. and other industrial nations start to lead, their governments will follow. Although some members of the U.S. Congress still seem to doubt this resolve, it is past time for this nation to conduct the experiment and start to lead. That is the best remaining hope for averting global climate catastrophe.

Note: This story was originally published with the title, "One Last Chance to Lead in 2009".



ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
John P. Holdren is professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and director of the Woods Hole Research Center. He is also co-chair of the independent National Commission on Energy Policy.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-future-of-climate-change-policy

[RickT]

With all of the space junk floating around the planet, I suspect the natural amount of light is already be blocked out.

[jflack]

Global Climatic Disruption:
Risks and Opportunities
John P. Holdren

Investor Summit on Climate Risk
UN Foundation • UNFIP • CERES
UN Headquarters, New York • 14 February 2008

Mitigation possibilities include…

(CERTAINLY)
• Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases & soot
from the energy sector
• Reduce deforestation; increase reforestation &
afforestation
• Modify agricultural practices to reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases & build up soil carbon
(POSSIBLY)
• “Scrub” greenhouse gases from the atmosphere
technologically
• “Geo-engineering” to create cooling effects
offsetting greenhouse heating

You can read this 61 page pdf here.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/2008_2-14_UN_CERES_rev2.pdf

This guy is trouble and needs to be exposed now.  He holds a high position.

[Unintelligable Name]

With all of the space junk floating around the planet, I suspect the natural amount of light is already be blocked out.

The World sunlight reaching Earth numbers are dropping every year.

What is Global Dimming

Global Dimming - Wikipedia

Some climate scientists have theorized that aircraft contrails (also called vapor trails) are implicated in global dimming, but the constant flow of air traffic previously meant that this could not be tested. The near-total shutdown of civil air traffic during the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a rare opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C (1.8 °F) was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought

[Monkeypox]

The World sunlight reaching Earth numbers are dropping every year.

Which is why the Earth is actually cooling.

[Unintelligable Name]

Some scientists have suggested using aerosols to stave off the effects of global warming as an emergency geoengineering measure.[46] In 1974, Mikhail Budyko suggested that if global warming became a problem, the planet could be cooled by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze.[47][48] An increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.[49]

However, Earth would still face many problems, such as:

Using sulfates causes environmental problems such as acid rain[50]
Using carbon black causes human health problems[50]
Dimming causes ecological problems such as changes in evaporation and rainfall patterns[50]
Droughts and/or increased rainfall cause problems for agriculture[50]
Aerosol has a relatively short lifetime
In a weblog posting, Gavin Schmidt stated that "Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a 'Faustian bargain' because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs

Yet Chemtrails are the hardest thing [in my experience] to show people that they exist. Very odd.

[Monkeypox]

The Earth is actually beginning to cool. What I see happening:

1. Carbon Taxes and other environmental wacko taxes will be instituted.

2. Wacky programs to "stop global warming" will be put into place.

3. When the Earth's temperature begins to drop due to natural cycles, TPTB and the Environmental Wackos will take credit for it -even though they had nothing to do with it.

[carlee]

Longest Solar Minimum Since 1913

© 2009 by Linda Moulton Howe

 

“It's a fascinating time. It's the quietest sun in a century,
since the solar cycle of 1902 to 1913. ”
- Mark Miesch, Ph.D., NCAR's High Altitude Observatory

 

   
Spotless sun on April 7, 2009. Out of 365 days in 2008,
266 were without sunspots. So far in 2009, January had 25
sunspot free days; February had 23 sun spot free days; and
March had 28 sun spot free days. Image source:  SOHO.

 

April 7, 2009  Huntsville, Alabama and Boulder, Colorado -  A sunspot is a region of intense magnetic activity on the Sun's surface that are cooler than the rest of the sun. That's why they appear as dark spots. [ Sunspots are at temperatures of roughly 4,000 to 4,500 Kelvin surrounded by hotter solar material around 5,800 Kelvin.]


Many sunspots on the sun,
March 29, 2001. Image by SOHO.

       
Left:  July 15, 2002, “the most detailed images ever of sunspots” on sun's granular surface
by solar telescope in La Palma, Canary Islands, off African coast. Resolution is 62 miles (100 km). Colorized image by Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Institute for Solar Physics. 
Right:  Sunspot viewed close-up in ultraviolet light by the TRACE spacecraft.

 

Those dark sunspots appear in cycles of about eleven years. In between spots on the sun are quiet times called solar minimums. The last solar cycle minimum 23 began in May 1996. The next solar cycle 24 was expected to start some time in 2007 with a new crop of sunspots. But it is now April 2009, and this has been the most spotless sun in a century.

Scientists did not start numbering solar cycles until 1755, after a mini-ice age in Europe that was linked to a nearly spotless sun for seventy years, a period referred to as the Maunder Minimum.

 

Maunder Minimum of 1645 - 1715


Sunspots were at the lowest number for longest time of seventy years between 1645 and 1715,
in what was called the Maunder Minimum after solar astronomer Edward Maunder. During one
30-year-period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers saw only about 50 sunspots compared
to modern sunspot cycles of 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots in a 30-year-period. Source of data: Solar
Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) at the Royal Observatory of Belgium.

The Maunder Minimum, named after solar physicist Edward Maunder, was a 70-year-long period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare. During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots compared to 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots in modern times.

 

Solar Cycle 24

On January 4, 2008, a patch of magnetism on the sun was declared by NASA to be the first official sunspot of the new Solar Cycle 24. The spot was in a high-latitude on the sun with reversed polarity from the previous Solar Cycle 23.


On January 4, 2008 , this new high-latitude active solar region was magnetically reversed
from sunspot magnetic directions in the previous Solar Cycle 23. So, this sunspot officially
marked the beginning of Solar Cycle 24. Images courtesy SOHO/NASA/ESA.

With that discovery, solar scientists expected 2008 would bring more sunspots as the new solar cycle developed intensity toward solar maximum in 2011 to 2012. But out of 365 days in 2008, 266 were without sunspots. So far in 2009, January had 25 sunspot free days; February had 23 sun spot free days; and March had 28 sun spot free days. Solar Cycle 23 began in a May 1996 minimum, so by April 2009, it's been thirteen years between minimums and still no increasing sunspots. The last time a solar cycle has gone thirteen years between minimums was Solar Cycle 15 in 1902 to 1913.


NASA reports that in 2008 (yellow in above graph), no sunspots were observed for 266
of the year's 365 days (73% of the time) - the most blank sun since 1913 when there were
311 spotless solar days (85%). Image credit:  Spaceweather.com.

Recently I talked about the unusual thirteen years between solar cycle minimums 23 and 24 with John Davis, Ph.D., Manager of the Space Science Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Davis had planned to launch an instrument in September 2008 to measure the sun's magnetic fields. But he needs active sunspots in order to have fields to measure, so he and his fellow scientists are still waiting to launch. Frustrated, Dr. Davis now wonders if there will even be sunspots this summer of 2009?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interviews:

John Davis, Ph.D., Manager, Space Science Office, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama:  “Six months ago, my prediction was that sunspots would have turned up by now because I was comparing it to other past cycles that Solar Cycle 23 seemed to be like. And there you had a fairly long decline and then the turn up would occur and I was saying by April 2009, we would have substantial activity.

WHICH IS NOW.

Yes, I know! (laughs) I’ve postponed my guess for sunspots starting again now until July 2009, but I don’t know if that’s going to be any better. My guess is that the spotless sun could go on for quite a long time – maybe another 12 months. Although within those 12 months, I would not be surprised to see one or two active rotations of the sun with sunspots and then it will drop back down again to spotlessness.

That’s what has happened in the past, but that’s no guarantee that that’s what is going to happen in the future.

AS AN EDUCATED GUESS, WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT FOR THE SOLAR MAXIMUM? WHEN WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE X-40 FLARES AGAIN?

It would go on the same 11-year-cycle. That would not change. The maximum, if it comes – I cannot tell you if it is going to be a large or small cycle. The suggestion now is that it will be a fairly small cycle about three years from now (2012). If it doesn’t do that, I don’t know what the sun is doing! (laughs)

SO PERHAPS NOT AS INTENSE A SOLAR MAX AS ORIGINALLY EXPECTED?

Not as intense. But as soon as you say something, our sun knows what it’s going to do and it doesn’t tell us! (laughs) My guess is, if I were going to put money on it, I would say that the next two solar cycles are actually going to be quite small and that the next minimum will also be long, without sunspots like this solar cycle 24 because the sun has done that twice before in the past. And if you look at the second of those two long minimums, it can be followed by a fairly strong maximum cycle. Four of the last five solar cycles have been very big cycles. That’s somewhat unusual, and it's also unusual that this minimum in solar cycle 24 has gone so long without sunspots.

IS THE BOTTOM LINE HERE THAT THE SUN IS STILL BAFFLING TO OUR WORLD’S BEST SOLAR PHYSICISTS?

(laughs)  It’s baffling to me!  We can only say that the consensus opinion did not expect this.”

 

What's Going On Inside the Sun?

Astrophysicist Mark Miesch, Ph.D., Staff Scientist at the High Altitude Observatory (HAO) at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado studies the solar dynamo, which is how the sun generates the magnetic fields that make sunspots. He also wonders what's going on inside the sun? And how much longer before sunspots emerge again?


Mark Miesch, Ph.D., HAO/NCAR, Boulder, Colorado. Image © by NCAR/ICAR.

Mark Miesch, Ph.D., Staff Scientist at the High Altitude Observatory (HAO), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado:  “It's a fascinating time. It's the quietest sun in a century, since the solar cycle of 1902 to 1913. This relatively long minimum now by April 2009 – it was not predicted, but it’s not completely unprecedented. According to some computer models, a deep solar minimum implies that the upcoming solar maximum will be weaker than usual as well. But other models say differently, that the maximum in 2011 to 2012 could still be strong. So it could go either way.

WHAT DOES YOUR WORK IN STUDYING THE SUN INDICATE TO YOU?

Well, I wouldn’t want to go on the record with a prediction! (laughs) My work indicates it’s all rather random. I study how stars build magnetic fields. The sun and other stars we see in the galaxy – there are many stars that exhibit magnetic activity like our sun. And the one thing they all have in common is what we call convection. In the outer part of stars, we know that convection means warm stuff rises and cooler stuff sinks. If you heat a fluid from below like in the sun, energy is released by nuclear reactions in the core and that heats the fluid from below so you have over-turning motions and those fluid motions are what generate magnetic fields.

That constant churning motion inside the sun is what builds magnetic fields. The energy of motion of the fluids is converted into magnetic energy. The turbulent nature of those fluids is very chaotic, so that’s what gives you the chaotic part of the sun. That’s why each solar cycle is not the same as the last because there is a certain random element.

WHAT IS A SUNSPOT FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW?

A sunspot is a manifestation of the magnetic field in the deep interior of the sun. In fact, it was 100 years ago that the American astronomer, George Ellery Hale, first detected magnetic fields on the sun and it was in sunspots. That was in 1908 to 1909. So, he was the first to show that sunspots are a magnetic phenomenon that come from magnetic fields. And we now think that those magnetic fields originate deep in the interior of the sun and then rise through something we call ‘magnetic buoyancy.’ There are tubes of magnetism that are less dense than their surroundings and they rise like a hot air balloon and then poke out of the surface of the sun. And that’s what we think a sunspot is. Sunspots are a way to probe the magnetism below the surface of the sun.

WHEN THE SUN IS GOING SO LONG WITHOUT SUNSPOTS, WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO YOU ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING DEEP INSIDE OF THE SUN?

It says there are no magnetic fields strong enough to become buoyant like hot air balloons. The sun now is not generating these strong concentrations of magnetic field. But that does not mean that solar magnetism has stopped. A fascinating thing is just like the Earth has a magnetic field around it, the sun has a magnetic field around it that is pushed out by the solar wind and envelopes the whole solar system. There are cosmic rays that are generated by supernovae and other explosions in the galaxy that permeate the Milky Way galaxy, but the sun has a magnetic cage around all the planets that deflects those cosmic rays.

So, at times when the magnetic activity of the sun is small (like right now), more cosmic rays get in to Earth. When magnetic activity on the sun is high, less cosmic rays get into Earth. Those cosmic rays come to Earth and create isotopes in certain elements like beryllium and carbon. You can measure that back 10,000 years. Beryllium is in ice corers in Greenland and Antarctica. Carbon is contained in tree rings if you find an old tree.

By looking at the isotopes, we can trace sunspot cycles back a long time. That tells us that the solar cycle was still going on in the Maunder Minimum. The sun’s protective bubble around all the planets was going up and down every 11 years just like now, and yet there were no sunspots then. So, it’s a fascinating puzzle.

Some computer models say that sunspots are an integral part of why there is an 11-year-cycle, that the cycle cannot proceed without sunspots. But the isotope data during the Maunder Minimum suggest that might not be the case. So, us having a prolonged minimum now is exciting from a scientific point of view.

WHEN DO YOU EXPECT TO START SEEING A LOT OF SUNSPOTS AGAIN?

From what I study, I study turbulent fluids and turbulence is inherently random and unpredictable. So, from my experience it is unwise to predict what a chaotic system is going to do.

SO, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN WITH THE SUN, INCLUDING ANOTHER MAUNDER MINIMUM?

Yes, that’s possible, but I think it’s unlikely.

WHY IS IT UNLIKELY?

Because the sun is a chaotic system and the Maunder Minimum was the only extended period like that in the last 400 years. It might never happen again.

 

Why Does Sun Have Cycles?

IF THE SUN IS A CHAOTIC SYSTEM, THEN WHY ARE THERE ANY 11 AND 22 YEAR CYCLES ON THE SUN AT ALL?

That is an excellent question. There are random processes superimposed on top of more ordered processes. Every star has a mixture of those. Our sun is particularly regular, compared to other stars. You can look at other stars and some have solar cycles like the sun and others are just completely chaotic and they have no rhyme or reason about what their magnetic activity is doing.

WHAT PRODUCES THE CYCLE IN OUR SUN?

That is a question that people have been asking for 200 years, or at least 150 years.

NOBODY KNOWS?

Well, there are models and it has to do with how the sun is stretched out. It has to do with differential rotation. The sun spins faster at its equator than at its poles. That tends to stretch out magnetic fields. If you have a magnetic field line that goes from the equator to the pole, but the equator spins around faster than the pole, that magnetic field line gets stretched out into an east and west direction and it gets stronger and stronger.

HOW DOES THE SUN GO FASTER AT THE EQUATOR THAN THE POLES?

That’s another question that people have been working on for centuries, but it has to do again with this convection, the fluid motions. As you heat the outer 30% of the sun, it has these turbulent convective motions in it. As these motions go up and down and overturn, they transport heat from the interior to the surface to make the sun shine. They create magnetic fields. And the convective motions also re-distribute angular momentum. The way the convective motions re-distribute angular momentum in a spinning star makes the equator spin faster than the poles.

 

Sun's Intensely Hot Nuclear Core,
Cool Surface and Hot Coronas

Core = 10 million degrees Kelvin, or 17,999,540.3 degrees Fahrenheit
Surface = 6,000 degrees Kelvin, or 10,340.33 degrees Fahrenheit
Corona Away from Sun = 2 million degrees Kelvin, or 3,599,540.33 degrees F.



The interior of the sun is hotter than the surface  - it’s the nature of why a star is stable. Gravity pushes in, but you have to have an outward gradient of pressure. Pressure has to push out to balance gravity, so the center of the star has to have a higher pressure than the surface, or the star will implode.

The interior of the sun is about 10 million degrees Kelvin (17,999,540.3 degrees Fahrenheit). The surface is about 6,000 Kelvin (10,340.33 degrees Fahrenheit). So, the sun's surface goes down in temperature a lot compared to the core and that’s not so much a mystery. You expect that from the pressure balancing gravity.

But the mystery is that the temperature goes up again – that from the surface of the sun, it goes from 6,000 degrees Kelvin at the surface to 2 million degrees Kelvin (3,599,540.33 degrees Fahrenheit) in the corona. That’s one of the big mysteries of the sun – why is the corona hotter than the surface? The source of the heat in the sun is generated by nuclear processes in the core of the sun. Just as you have a heater in your house, as you go farther away from the heater, you expect the temperature to cool down and as you go closer to the heater, you expect it to be warmer. So, the corona is farther away from the heat source and yet, it is hotter.

WHAT IS THE ENERGY THAT WOULD CAUSE A RISE FROM 6,000 DEGREES KELVIN AT THE SURFACE TO 2 MILLION IN THE CORONA AWAY FROM THE SUN?

It all comes down to magnetism again. The magnetism that is generated in the convection zone in the interior of the sun and that magnetism threads through the surface of the sun and is spit out in eruption events such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and the magnetic field threading the surface from the interior convection zone wiggles the magnetic field lines and that transports energy out into the corona. Then that energy is dissipated and converted to heat. So, it all has to do with magnetic energy. The turbulent fluid motions in the solar interior transform the energy of motion into magnetic energy that filters out to the sun’s surface and then in the corona – that magnetic energy is changed back to heat – a redistribution of energy.

 

More Cosmic Rays Getting to Earth
in Long Solar Minimum

IS THERE ANY POTENTIAL DANGER TO EARTH’S SURFACE LIFE IF THE SUN GOES FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT SUNSPOTS?

Not really. There is still solar magnetism. The magnetic bubble that protectively surrounds the Earth, we call the magnetosphere. The similar magnetic protective bubble around the sun and al the planets in our solar system is called the heliosphere. There is still solar magnetism permeating the heliosphere, even during the Maunder Minimum and during solar minimums. So, if there were no sunspots for 70 years, there would still be a heliosphere.

BUT IT DOES SHRINK.

Yes, the amount of magnetism in the heliosphere does go down when solar activity goes down and lets more cosmic rays in.

WHAT IS THE DANGER OF MORE COSMIC RAYS COMING TO EARTH?

Not significant from a health perspective. The biggest impact that solar activity has is at times of strong solar activity. You would not want to take a trans-polar flight, like a flight from New York City to Beijing, China. They go at pretty high latitudes. If there is a lot of magnetic activity on the sun, it sends out particles in the solar wind and those get funneled towards the Earth’s polar magnetic fields and that’s what causes aurora. Aurora are nice to look at when you are safely standing on the Earth’s surface, but if you are in a plane in the stratosphere, you can get a significant dose of radiation if you fly through an aurora.

WHAT ABOUT THE ASTRONAUTS UP ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION (ISS)?

Yes, the ISS itself is within the magnetosphere, it is within Earth’s protective bubble and its orbit is more towards the Equator in the lower latitudes. So, actually astronauts on the ISS would get less radiation than a high-altitude flight over the Earth’s poles. But if you went to the moon or Mars outside the Earth’s magnetosphere – astronauts on a deep space mission – would certainly get a lot of solar radiation if there were a lot of magnetic activity on the sun.

 

2011 - 2012 Solar Max Could Hurt Satellites
and Affect Airline Flights Over North Pole

If we kick into a strong maximum in 2011 to 2012, the sun could become a threat again. What usually happens is that it’s more an economic issue than health issue because if there is a significant threat of increased radiation, what the planes will do is fly lower. Flying lower means more atmospheric drag, which means more fuel consumption and possibly multiple stops to refuel.

It can potentially cost the airlines money and other economic impacts, too. High solar activity can disable satellites, so communication satellites in particular can be disabled. Telecommunication companies would have to repair them or launch new ones and that can be an economic impact. Also high solar activity can disrupt power grids underground. So, this all goes under the realm of what we call space weather.

The most exciting thing for me is this is the deepest minimum of the Space Age and now since we have instruments to monitor the sun and space weather and the whole magnetism and heliosphere and how the sun interacts with the planets – we have more instruments and telescopes now in space and on the ground monitoring this than ever before. This minimum will tell us a lot about how the sun generates magnetic fields and how those magnetic fields shape the solar corona and the heliosphere and how solar activity impacts the planets.

AND THAT EVEN OUT OF A LONG MINIMIUM LIKE THIS ONE, WE STILL COULD HAVE X-40 FLARES AS WE GET TO 2011 TO 2012?

It’s possible, yes.”

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1545&category=Science

[Unintelligable Name]

Yet Chemtrails are the hardest thing [in my experience] to show people that they exist. Very odd.

What I meant to say was it is hard to convince people Chemtrails are real even when presented with substantial, scientific evidence as well as patents for such things.

[Lexington1775]

Alex doesn't take criticism very well.
Referring to the caller in the 'overdrive' segment.
Alex sometimes (frequently) exaggerates the details of what is in an article and when it is pointed out that this does not help wake people up, Alex blows up.

It isn't that we don't believe you Alex. We just want facts to back up the claims.

[Godsent]

Alex doesn't take criticism very well.
Referring to the caller in the 'overdrive' segment.
Alex sometimes (frequently) exaggerates the details of what is in an article and when it is pointed out that this does not help wake people up, Alex blows up.

It isn't that we don't believe you Alex. We just want facts to back up the claims.

A bit on the edge today, I am sure Watson will get it proper when he post's the information.   

 C'mon Alex don't inhale. exhale Dammit..

[Size10]

Alex doesn't take criticism very well.
Referring to the caller in the 'overdrive' segment.
Alex sometimes (frequently) exaggerates the details of what is in an article and when it is pointed out that this does not help wake people up, Alex blows up.

It isn't that we don't believe you Alex. We just want facts to back up the claims.

Agreed. And I'm a big believer in chemtrails, and love the AJ show. The caller was just trying to make the point that the article wasn't an admission of chemtrails.

[Godsent]

Agreed. And I'm a big believer in chemtrails, and love the AJ show. The caller was just trying to make the point that the article wasn't an admission of chemtrails.

I am afraid he lost a good listener on that one. He must be a ball of raw nerves.

[Scootle]

Lol this article title reminded me of the simpsons

[ChristSavage]

Watch, now that the earth is cooling, they'll admit we need to prevent global cooling, and they'll come up with a new tax for it!!! 

[Elvis]

Watch, now that the earth is cooling, they'll admit we need to prevent global cooling, and they'll come up with a new tax for it!!! 

Yeah, but only after they've taxed us for global warming. That way, they can tax us for paying the taxes that made the world cool, then they can kill us because it's all our fault.

[Elvis]

They sell chemtrails at Walmart?   

yeah, they call 'em "air chemditioners"

[Revolt426]

A direct result of Malthusian maniac Prince Charles and Tony Blair being dispatched to Washington to Brainwash people.

[UKStewart82]

Blair must have flopped around on the ground, talked to the spirits, and they gave him this magnificient idea!  AHH, the NWO gets even more frustrating because they're not even that smart.  WE'VE JUST BECOME THAT DUMB!

[unitedstrokesofamerica]

No your title is wrong This is a joke. This gov we have is a joke. These moronic ideas are a joke. Obama is a joke. His idea of change is a joke. Global warming is a joke.  The only thing is, this is not funny any more. This shit sounds like some plot from some horrible TV show. i just don't get it.  fake trees mirrors in space i mean come on. The earth has been here for billions and billions of years and we have been here for what 10 to 20K at most.  It got along just fine all those years without all this crap. i just wanna yell AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH