Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"All Quiet Alert" Issued For the Sun

kdawson posted about 7 years ago | from the that-would-fix-global-warming dept.

Space 463

radioweather writes "The phrase sounds like an oxymoron, and maybe it is, but the sun is extremely quiet right now, so much in fact that the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium issued an unusual 'All quiet alert' on October 5th. Since then the sunspot number has remained at zero — solar cycle 24 has not yet started. There are signs that the sun's activity is slowing. The solar wind has been decreasing in speed, and this is yet another indicator of a slowing in the sun's magnetic dynamo. There is talk of an extended solar minimum occurring. There are a number of theories and a couple of dozen predictions about the intensity solar cycle 24 which has yet to start. One paper by Penn & Livingstonin in 2006 concludes: 'If [trends] continue to decrease at the current rate then the number of sunspots in the next solar cycle (cycle 24) would be reduced by roughly half, and there would be very few sunspots visible on the disk during cycle 25.' We'll know more in about six months what the sun decides to do for cycle 24."

cancel ×

463 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sunspot numbers (5, Informative)

lecithin (745575) | about 7 years ago | (#21000901)


Here is a nice graph that shows sunspot data from 1620 to 2000

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html [spaceweather.com]

We can see that this isn't anything new.

BTW - If you are interested in Auroras, keep watch on the 18th-19th. We are about to get hit with a solar wind stream.

Quick! Alert the scientific community! (5, Funny)

winkydink (650484) | about 7 years ago | (#21000955)

And get Al Gore on the phone, now!

We must take immediate and drastic steps to fight Global Darkening!

Maybe we can get that Kim Stanley Robinson person to write a book? 70 Days of Night?

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (5, Informative)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | about 7 years ago | (#21001109)

I see you, and several others in the comments, making connections to sunspots and global warming. There really isn't one, or rather, it's the opposite of what you'd think. The more sunspots the sun has, the hotter it gets. Indeed a prolonged period of low sunspot activity is one of the (unproven, competing) theories on what caused the Little Ice Age.

So, if you want to draw a conclusion on this, if the sunspots are low, and the earth is still getting hotter... that means we really are getting hotter (disclaimer: sunspot numbers go up and down all the time in regular cycles. Global Warming is a very long term trend that is going up over several sunspot cycles. You can't really draw a conclusion on global warming based on a short term sunspot activity. I'm just saying, if you really wanted to draw one, that'd be it).

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (4, Funny)

winkydink (650484) | about 7 years ago | (#21001141)

No, I am drawing a link between the article and humor. Try and keep up.

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (1, Interesting)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | about 7 years ago | (#21001249)

Sunspots cool the suns surface though, so no.

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (3, Interesting)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | about 7 years ago | (#21001431)

Since sunspots are dark it might be expected that more sunspots lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding areas are brighter and the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun. The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, of the order of 0.1% of the solar constant (a peak-to-trough range of 1.3 W m-2 compared to 1366 W m-2 for the average solar constant)[2][3]. This range is slightly smaller than the change in radiative forcing caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 18th century[4]. During the Maunder Minimum in the 17th Century there were hardly any sunspots at all. This coincides with a period of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. It has been speculated that there may be a resonant gravitational link between a photospheric tidal force from the planets, the dominant component by summing gravitational tidal force (75%) being Jupiter's with an 11 year cycle[5].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot [wikipedia.org]

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (5, Informative)

ZombieWomble (893157) | about 7 years ago | (#21001461)

Sunspots are local areas of cooling on the solar surface. However, a less immediately obvious but highly significant factor is that the area around sunspots is warmer than the natural solar temperature. The net result is an increase in total solar output during times of high sunspot activity. Thus there is a positive correlation between sunspot activity and the energy which is delivered to earth. I'm lazy and can't immediately find a better reference than the relevant Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] , but I'm sure someone with more diligence could dig up something better.

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001257)

Your post is proof positive that marijuana has medical applications.

After only three or four joints you'd likely start 'getting' posts like the one you replied to. At the very least you would no longer feel compelled to reply even if you didn't.

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001581)

woosh is the sound jokes make by flying over your head.

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001151)

Maybe we can get that Kim Stanley Robinson person to write a book? 70 Days of Night?
No. This is too serious. We need Melissa Etheridge. Sing, baby! Sing!

"...An Inconvenient All Quiet Alert..."

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (2, Funny)

I'm Al Gore, Bitch (1167703) | about 7 years ago | (#21001455)

You Called?


Now everybody listen carefully: GTFO my internet.

Re:Quick! Alert the scientific community! (1)

Mahjub Sa'aden (1100387) | about 7 years ago | (#21001569)

Someone alert the scientific community that sound from the sun used to travel through the luminiferous aether, but due to recent advances in physics the sun has fallen oddly silent! It's like a giant vacuum is sucking all the sound out of the sun!!!

Re:Sunspot numbers (5, Insightful)

srmalloy (263556) | about 7 years ago | (#21001135)

However, since the historical record shows that the worst part of the Little Ice Age occurred during the Maunder Minimum, when the sunspot level was also atypically low for a protracted period, then if the current conditions on the Sun continue for long enough, it should provide evidence that would either confirm or debunk the premise that global warming is a function of fluctuations in solar activity. Unfortunately, as the controversy has assumed the status of a holy war [jargondb.org] , regardless of what happens, both sides will accuse the other of misinterpreting the data and persist in their claims.

Re:Sunspot numbers (5, Funny)

Surt (22457) | about 7 years ago | (#21001519)

Technically, only the global warming believers can persist in their claims in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The other side would be dead.

That's the Maunder Minimum (5, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | about 7 years ago | (#21001197)

We think of sunspots as following a fixed, 11-year cycle, but this may only be one part of the story.

I don't think the 'experts' necessarily know anything more at this point, either; just a few years ago, NASA was predicting that the next cycle would be the strongest ever, and that got a lot of people (especially folks that do a lot of shortwave/HF radio) very excited. Now, it looks like we may have a very small cycle, or no cycle at all -- it's anybody's guess.

The dead spot on some sunspot charts from 1650-1700 is called the "Maunder Minimum". During that period, rather than talking about sunspots, observers of the day would write about the appearance of a particular sunspot (very much singular!). Unfortunately, the data prior to the beginning of the minimum is pretty sparse, and exactly when it started is under some dispute.

There was also another minimum in the early 19th century, called the Dalton Minimum, although it wasn't as severe and it only lasted about 25 years.

So that's two minima separated by a 150-year gap. But at 150 years after the 1800 minimum, rather than another minimum, we actually get a maximum in 1950. There's just not enough historical data to make a good prediction, because we don't know how complex the cycle is. But it's clearly more complex than just 11 years.

I can't find a link to it online, but I heard a talk recently about a group that was using geological evidence to try and track the sunspot cycle further back than we have human observations. Not sure quite what the method is, or if it's yielded any results. But that would certainly be interesting, if you could get some real historical perspective instead of the piddling 7 centuries (at most) that you can find written records of. That might give us some idea of what's been going on, on very long timescales, as well as perhaps filling in the gaps in the historical record in more recent times (not sure what kind of resolution you can get).

To use a water analogy, the 11-year cycles might be waves lapping at the shore, but there might be scores of other forces acting on them at higher levels, like tides, wind, and the seasons, all on vastly different time-scales.

All in all, for something that we spend the majority of our waking lives under, our understanding of the sun is surprisingly poor. Particularly given how much modern technology (radio communications is the obvious one, but there are others) can be affected by the solar cycle, it seems to be ignored until it does something unexpected.

Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (1)

computational super (740265) | about 7 years ago | (#21001289)

So, uh... are we or aren't we all going to die?

Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (4, Insightful)

missing000 (602285) | about 7 years ago | (#21001375)

So, uh... are we or aren't we all going to die?
yes.

Re:That's the Maunder Minimum (5, Funny)

HarvardAce (771954) | about 7 years ago | (#21001517)

So, uh... are we or aren't we all going to die?
I think it's pretty safe to say that we're all going to die, although statistics would indicate it probably won't be from sunspots.

Re:Sunspot numbers (1)

Bender Unit 22 (216955) | about 7 years ago | (#21001207)

So nothing new under the sun?

Re:Sunspot numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001359)

Your attempt at humor has failed. Please try again.

Re:Sunspot numbers (2, Insightful)

kannibul (534777) | about 7 years ago | (#21001295)

Amazing - it happens to correspond with the temperature "fears" relating to Global Warming and Cooling.

During the 60's and 70's, there was talk of a near-future Ice Age. During the 90's and today, there is talk of the ice caps melting and so on.

Graph! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001523)

We ain't got no time for stinking graphs...

THE SUN IS DYING!!!!!!1!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVERS!!

Re:Graph! (1)

smussman (1160103) | about 7 years ago | (#21001597)

I would, but it's firmly esconced in my abdomen. So I don't have to run after it.

no sunspots huh? (3, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | about 7 years ago | (#21000907)

The number of sunspots hits a minimum as the globe warms up. Denials at 11.

Re:no sunspots huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21000959)

Al Gore was right, we are on the way to destruction.

Re:no sunspots huh? (1)

feepness (543479) | about 7 years ago | (#21001035)

Al Gore was right, we are on the way to destruction.
What you say?!

Re:no sunspots huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001247)

You have no chance to survive make your time.

Re:no sunspots huh? (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | about 7 years ago | (#21001055)

We have no chance to survive, make our time.

Re:no sunspots huh? (2, Funny)

MiniMike (234881) | about 7 years ago | (#21001233)

All your sunspots are belong to us? To Al Gore? This is confusing...

At least no one is welcoming their un-sunspotted overlords...

Re:no sunspots huh? (2, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | about 7 years ago | (#21001139)

The number of sunspots hits a minimum as the globe warms up. Denials at 11.

Specifically, at 11 years since the last solar minimum. And 22 years since the one before that. And 33 years since the one before that.

Meanwhile, as you say, the globe warms up.

Re:no sunspots huh? (0, Troll)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | about 7 years ago | (#21001165)

The number of sunspots hits a minimum as the globe warms up. Denials at 11.
That's the first thing I thought of. All the dittoheads trying to blame global warming on sunspots. Don't worry, though, they'll find some other absurd excuse soon. Or, just stick their fingers in their ears and say "LA!LA!LA! I can't hear you!"

Re:no sunspots huh? (3, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 7 years ago | (#21001321)

Right.... The lesser greenhouse gas (both in amount and effectiveness) being the thing driving temperature is not absurd but the sun doing it is absurd? Lets wait and see what happens over a protracted period of time... I'm not sold on one theory or the other but to swear off either at this point it the equivalent of a blinding religious crusade.

Re:no sunspots huh? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 7 years ago | (#21001339)

Shhh, quiet, the sun is trying to sleep

Re:no sunspots huh? (1)

Mikya (901578) | about 7 years ago | (#21001355)

I'm pretty certain you're trying to make a joke here but actually a sunspot is a cooler spot on the sun then normal. Thus less cool spots could imply more energy coming from the sun giving the global warming crowd more fuel for their arguements. Coincidence? ;)

Obviously (5, Funny)

CodeMunch (95290) | about 7 years ago | (#21000929)

Obviously this is due to global warming on Earth caused by humans.

Re:Obviously (1)

danwat1234 (942579) | about 7 years ago | (#21000981)

Darn those blasted SUVs! I have a little bumper sticker that says; Draft SUV drivers first!

Re:Obviously (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 7 years ago | (#21001005)

Well yes it is due to the radio waves. With our Radio and Wireless stuff we are polluting space. Thus causing the reduction of sunspots.

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | about 7 years ago | (#21001153)

Obviously this is due to global warming on Earth caused by humans.


Nice flamebait. In response I'd like to point out the following.
a)There are direct measurements of incoming solar radiation, making all questions as to if we understand the sun irrelevant. We know that the incoming energy has not changed enough to continuously accelerating warming ( in fact, even while incoming radiation has decreased the earth has kept warming quicker and quicker).
b)Satelites sweep out the entire earth's surface measuring incoming and outgoing radiation. This has been going on for some time now. Surprise surprise, the main change is a major reduction in light leaving the earth at wavelengths which correspond to the fringes in CO2's absorption spectrum ( the peaks have saturated already ).
c)Analysis of the ratio of C14 to C12 has confirmed that a huge fraction of the increased CO2 concentration is from a fossil origin. The remainder is believed to be due to deforestation.
d)The oceans have been absorbing more and more CO2 which lowers the sea water pH, leading to "ocean acidification". This is a well documented problem, so the oceans emitting CO2 due to increased solar radiation is ruled out as a cause of recent warming.
e)We know to great detail how much CO2 ( and other greenhouse gases) we have emitted. Since the only other fossil source of carbon is volcanic and geological activity, this together with the C12/C14 analysis tells us volcanos are not to blame. This is also in agreement with our present understanding of geology.

So, in summary:
a)We know the change in radiative forcing is due to greenhouse gases.
b)We know the major amount of extra CO2 is from fossil sources.
c)We know we emit CO2 much more rapidly than volcanos and geologic activity.

You are arguing against the facts, I imagine that is why you insist on resorting to sarcasm and bad jokes rather than addressing the issue at hand.

Re:Obviously (1)

charlesbakerharris (623282) | about 7 years ago | (#21001271)

Ok, seriously, who modded the parent flamebait? If I had mod points, they'd be +1 funny. Sheesh, lighten up.

Simple (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | about 7 years ago | (#21000943)

Fusion has just finished its 6 sigma training after 5 billion of years. Which is good time considering that it was only hydrogen taking the training.

Re:Simple (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 7 years ago | (#21001111)

Sad thing is between the politics and science which are bound to own this article the sheer brilliance of this post will not get noticed...

Re:Simple (1)

cdrdude (904978) | about 7 years ago | (#21001159)

What is six sigma? Is there a joke that I'm missing here?

Re:Simple (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | about 7 years ago | (#21001407)

I don't think anyone knows for sure, [wikipedia.org] but we do know it has something to do with reducing variations in output, and it takes longer than it should.

Damn Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21000957)

Now it's messing with the Sun. I've got a small carbon footprint but I guess six billion feet is enough to reach the sun.

Re:Damn Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001127)

"but I guess six billion feet is enough to reach the sun"

Not even close. more like about 50 billion. (50,000,000,000)

Quick! (1)

katterjohn (726348) | about 7 years ago | (#21000961)

Send Hermes to throw a parallel universe in it!

It's Bush's fault!!!!! (0, Flamebait)

BrowncoatJedi (1006665) | about 7 years ago | (#21000979)

Everything is his fault! Riot!! Panic!!

So what does this mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21000997)

Global cooling? Somebody tell us, the article summary sure doesn't.

Our Sun is Dying. (1)

Michael_gr (1066324) | about 7 years ago | (#21001001)

Quick, somebody send Cillian Murphy and Michelle Yeoh to restart it.

Re:Our Sun is Dying. (1)

GuyinVA (707456) | about 7 years ago | (#21001161)

I thought we still had 5 billion years? Man, time flies...

Re:Our Sun is Dying. (1)

Captain Fallout (704318) | about 7 years ago | (#21001503)

That was the first thing I thought of as well. Great movie up until they enter Icarus 1.

Excellent! (1)

beaverbrother (586749) | about 7 years ago | (#21001007)

A slowing down sun - finally something to counteract global warming.

So in other words.. (0, Troll)

GmAz (916505) | about 7 years ago | (#21001017)

All the scientists in the world that think they know everything realize they dont' know jack and no matter how much data you have, you cannot predict nature.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001145)

Just how many scientists are there who think they know everything?

Most of the ones that I met are keenly aware of the limits of their models and of thier methods of discovery. I think this awareness stems from the well-established scientific practice of updating old theories in the light of new evidence, but I could be wrong.

Re:So in other words.. (2, Informative)

meringuoid (568297) | about 7 years ago | (#21001193)

no matter how much data you have, you cannot predict nature

In this case, you can.

Notice any kind of pattern here? [wikipedia.org]

Re:So in other words.. (2, Informative)

smoker2 (750216) | about 7 years ago | (#21001453)

Bollocks !
For the first 18 years of my life, I never went into a pub.
The next 20 years of my life I was in there every weekend, for 3 days.
Am I in the pub now ? Please, enlighten me. And bear in mind that the sun has a lot longer life cycle than me. (and I have access to the net anywhere due to 3G telephony).

Re:So in other words.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001587)

"Am I in the pub now ?"

If you don't know, you probably are.

Re:So in other words.. (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 7 years ago | (#21001229)

And if scientists don't understand something, it logically follows that God exists, creationism is true, etc. Surely that's good news for everyone. (Except infidels, of course.) We should all be very happy about this.

Re:So in other words.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001285)

Er, I'm pretty sure we can predict things in nature pretty accurately, in fact I do it all the time. For example. I can predict the orbits of my satellites and the motion of the planets pretty damn well, and I can also predict the way electromagnetic fields work with Maxwell's equations. Not to mention, oh, virtually the whole of the rest of physics, chemistry, engineering, actually, well, pretty much all the sciences really. After all that's what they are by definition.

You just wait. (0, Troll)

einer (459199) | about 7 years ago | (#21001021)

The GOP will claim this is evidence that global warming is junk science.

Re:You just wait. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001081)

I'm sure we won't have to wait too long for an "open-minded" liberal to make a character-attack on those who dare to question the church of Gaia.

Re:You just wait. (1)

jackpot777 (1159971) | about 7 years ago | (#21001211)

(said the Anonymous Coward.) Gaia has a church? Wouldn't that be a bit limiting for something 196,950,000 square miles big?

Science is a threat to some (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001589)

The latest Backpacker magazine had a great letter to the editor saying that since Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2 and is very cold that it is proof that CO2 isn't responsible for global warming. Never mind the fact that Mars' atmosphere has an average pressure of about 6 mb (~1% Earth's) and is approx .5 AU further from the sun than Earth. There is also the fact that Venus has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 and is a *bit* warmer. Looks like a lack of science education in this country is as big a threat as global warming.

Oh really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001031)

Will the chicken littles STFU if we start seeing some global cooling while this is going on?

Probably not.

Re:Oh really? (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | about 7 years ago | (#21001085)

If cooling is seen some how it will be chalked up to anthropomorphic climate change. Or they will credit Gore..

But what does it mean? Anything? (1, Redundant)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | about 7 years ago | (#21001067)

Is this "news" or is it observation?

Is there any relevance? Does this mean the sun will emit more or less energy? Will overall insolation drop?

Silly scientists... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001089)

The sun does not sleep, it waits.

(With apologies to Chuck Norris)

Holy crap goreman! (-1, Troll)

AutoTheme (851553) | about 7 years ago | (#21001119)

I hope Al Gore is a /. reader. If we time it just right (how long?), we can fix this alarming problem on the the sun and continue our trajectory to Mars and deal with the receding ice caps there. We'll have time as we ride Mars back to its closest to Earth (or will we?).

Hmmm...wait... When should we leave to hit Mars just right? Assume 2 Earth years fixing the Sun (seeing that it's hot and the cause has yet to be determined) and then 1 Earth year fixing Mars since there are no human emissions (we'll have to determine the cause before the fix). Feel free to fiddle with the assumptions.

Please show your work, not just answers...

Re:Holy crap goreman! (0, Offtopic)

AutoTheme (851553) | about 7 years ago | (#21001259)

NO Alexandre Dumbass! This is offtopic:

"Depends: It depends on what you think the cause is. Are they suing (or getting sued) over ZFS-related patents, and don't want to make any public comments while litigation is pending? Probably a bad thing. Unless the patent suit is about to be crushed because someone has strong prior art: Then it's a good thing."

Re:Holy crap goreman! (1)

AutoTheme (851553) | about 7 years ago | (#21001341)

O.K. Troll is acceptable and more insightful...

Re:Holy crap goreman! (3, Funny)

TheGeneration (228855) | about 7 years ago | (#21001301)

HOLY CRAPOLA I think you've got a reasonable solution to the global warming problem!!!! Mars is too cool for humans, and Earth is starting to get too hot. So, let's send SUV/Factory Emission worshiping Republicans to Mars to warm that planet while we keep all the intelligent people here on earth to relive the dark ages of human history without incandescent bulbs and 18 wheeler trucks. It's brilliant I tell ya! We simultaneously solve the religious war of Global Warming while ridding Earth of Rush Limbaugh fans!

Sum it up for me (3, Funny)

chill (34294) | about 7 years ago | (#21001129)

Is this a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? Inquiring minds want to know.

Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001181)

It depends on what you think the cause is. Are they suing (or getting sued) over ZFS-related patents, and don't want to make any public comments while litigation is pending? Probably a bad thing. Unless the patent suit is about to be crushed because someone has strong prior art: Then it's a good thing.

Re:Sum it up for me (1)

jamieswith (682838) | about 7 years ago | (#21001385)

Its a NORMAL thing... happens at the end of EVERY 11 year cycle... and has been happening for a long time...

Re:Sum it up for me (1)

chill (34294) | about 7 years ago | (#21001467)

Yes, I understand that part. So we're at the base of the cycle. That means radio propagation is exceptionally GOOD or exceptionally POOR...?

Layman's terms? (5, Funny)

iceyone (123598) | about 7 years ago | (#21001131)

Can someone explain what this means to us in laymans terms? I'm just a software geek. I know nothing of this "sun" you speak of.

Re:Layman's terms? (3, Funny)

YanceyAI (192279) | about 7 years ago | (#21001237)

The sun is a large celestial fusion-driven orb found on a westward trajectory by day. No need to concern yourself with it since as a software geek you will never see it. The low activity will be good for you since it won't interfer with your electronic devices. Cheers.

Re:Layman's terms? (0, Redundant)

Fontaigne (1093235) | about 7 years ago | (#21001279)

ROFL

Re:Layman's terms? (4, Funny)

Salsaman (141471) | about 7 years ago | (#21001433)

You know the really big room with the green floor and the blue ceiling ? The "sun" is apparently the big light in it that gets switched off at night.

Re:Layman's terms? (1)

drdrs (582450) | about 7 years ago | (#21001475)

Well, as I understand it, the sun is a mass of incandescent gas [youtube.com] , a gigantic nuclear furnace.

That sounds scary but it's quite far away, and that's why it looks so small.

Oooo! The sun's batteries are running out! :-) (0, Flamebait)

Richard Steiner (1585) | about 7 years ago | (#21001137)

The sky is falling! I wonder if global warming caused this, too?

This just in: (0, Flamebait)

el_coyotexdk (1045108) | about 7 years ago | (#21001149)

Sun-God listens to infidel Gore's prayers

Let me be the first to say... (0, Flamebait)

Thyamine (531612) | about 7 years ago | (#21001163)

AHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHH..... The end is near! Nuclear winter! Ozone depletion! Greenhouse effect! BUZZ WORD! BUZZ WORD! That is all. On a side note I find it interesting that people keep track of this sort of thing. Sunspots and such. And I thought some of the databases _I_ parse through all day were boring.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Insightful)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 7 years ago | (#21001401)

On a side note I find it interesting that people keep track of this sort of thing. Sunspots and such. And I thought some of the databases _I_ parse through all day were boring.
Keeping an eye on a 870,000 mile wide ball of fusing hydrogen near us sounds pretty interesting to me.

ZOMGS! (3, Funny)

TheGeneration (228855) | about 7 years ago | (#21001169)

The sun is going to burn out and I never even got to post a "first" post on Slashdot. I'm going to die cold and unfulfilled! (Not by sharks with lasers thank god. That's a plus.)

Whats this got to do with me? (1)

mezron (132274) | about 7 years ago | (#21001205)

I'm just doing a quick look through the links and it looks like this is a ~10 year cycle. Does it change the weather? Other than a "hmmm thats interesting" what am I missing?

Subby sounds like an oxymoron (0, Troll)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 7 years ago | (#21001287)

The phrase sounds like an oxymoron, and maybe it is, but the sun is extremely quiet right now

Given the extent to which sound travels in the vacuum of space, I expect the sun is extremely quiet all the time.

Re:Subby sounds like an oxymoron (2, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | about 7 years ago | (#21001329)

Given the extent to which sound travels in the vacuum of space, I expect the sun is extremely quiet all the time.

Given that the Sun is itself a large ball of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace in which hydrogen is built into helium at a temperature of millions of degrees, and on the surface of which flares and eruptions with the energy of millions of times the entire nuclear arsenal of the planet Earth go off more or less daily, I'd say it's a pretty damn noisy place all the time.

Re:Subby sounds like an oxymoron (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | about 7 years ago | (#21001443)

I haven't heard it shine for a while, maybe there is something strange going on.

Re:Subby sounds like an oxymoron (1)

ThosLives (686517) | about 7 years ago | (#21001507)

Wow, I thought you were going to quote the entire They Might Be Giants song there for a second...

Re:Subby sounds like an oxymoron (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 7 years ago | (#21001469)

You may be surprised [wikipedia.org]

Re:Subby sounds like an oxymoron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001541)

Yes, because we all know that if you can't hear it, it must not be making any noise.

Simple Explanation (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 7 years ago | (#21001373)

Obviously the sun is shutting down to do its regular backup.

Proof! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21001397)

This proves that global warming is caused by SUV's, and somehow proves that the sun has absolutely no effect on Earths weather! Another feather in Algores hat!

With the rapid increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes predicted for this year, which is up to a high of 0 from the low we had during the Katrina years, we are obviously on the path to total destruction. As the global temperature heats up, we will surely freeze to death!

Fun (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | about 7 years ago | (#21001419)

I'm a bit agnostic to the whole global warming issue, but it'd be fun if this phenomenom shuts up the most vocal doomsday clowns.

OMG, History is Repeating Itself (0, Redundant)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 7 years ago | (#21001423)

We have sunspot variablity, how about that for cyclic behavior, unrelated to humans.

We have had 2 dozen ice ages in the last millions of years, and most certainly humans didn't cause those either.

To be very specific, some repetitive factor cause the cooling, and then at the depth of the ice ages, something (unrelated to humans) caused the climate to warm up.

Until we know why this has repeatedly occurred, we will not know what, if anything, humans can do about it. Oh that is except move out of the way of the encroaching water or ice, depending on your politics.

Global Shmoble... (1)

Rihahn (879725) | about 7 years ago | (#21001557)

I think they should be looking into the solar system warming problem and not be so Earth-centric...

I mean, I find it interesting that there are reports about how the temperature of Mars has increased at the same rate as Earth for the last three or four years... So, obviously, we're screwing up so bad we're even having an effect on our nearest planetary neighbors, maybe even the entire solar system!

Nuke us from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...

Sunspot-Minimum vs Sun-ad maximum (1)

rainer_d (115765) | about 7 years ago | (#21001583)

Did anybody also notice the irony of the SunFire ad at the top?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?