PDA

View Full Version : New solar model claims 97% predictive accuracy – 2030s may see big drop in output



vacuum
11th July 2015, 12:14 AM
Just read about this and did a little research for you guys.

Researchers took a look at historical solar data, and developed a model which they say is 97% accurate at predicting sunspots and solar output. According to the model, they say conditions in 2030 will be similar to that of the Maunder minimum.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-irregular-heartbeat-sun-driven-dynamo.html

They say their model is two dynamos within the sun, one close to the core and another closer to the surface, that is responsible for sun activity. Both dynamos have roughly an 11 year period, however they are offset in time and have slightly different periods which causes them to either cancel or superimpose to create things like ice ages and as you know various medieval solar events.

This dual-dynamo theory is nice, but I read a comment by someone which I found very intriguing, and I think is much simpler:

The mainstream astronomy is surprisingly persistent in its ignorance of explanation, what drives the Solar dynamo - the changes of barycenter location of Solar system with massive planets. It just looks like another taboo of mainstream physics for me. Its ignorance is the more surprising, as this explanation doesn't threat the established physical theories very much - with the only honor exception: the Arrhenius model of global warming. And this is IMO the rub of this ignorance: the NASA, which is motivated to solar research the most is also engaged in anthropocentric global warming model.

Lets to say clearly, that the ignorance of apparent coincidence of period of solar cycle with orbital period of Jupiter planet is quite a success for ignorance of mainstream science of the latest four hundred years. Everyone can verify it. But the the secondary cycles (like the Gleissberg's cycle (http://i.imgur.com/yef0UZI.gif)) coincide with orbital periods of another planets too! There is absolutely no need to invent silly stuffs.

I looked up information on the barycenter of our solar system, and indeed sometimes the center of mass/rotation isn't even located within the sun, which seems like a very violent thing to me:

To calculate the actual motion of the Sun, you would need to sum all the influences from all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc. of the Solar System (see n-body problem). If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun's surface.

I also looked up the orbital period of Jupiter and it is 11.8 years.

Regardless of the mechanism that causes these things to happen, the fact that they claim to have a model with 97% accuracy is very good and should be able to make good predictions of the future, so the 2030 thing might be real. It is impressive indeed if the model can predict this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/500px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png
(https://3c-lxa.gmx.com/mail/client/dereferrer?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia. org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3ACarbon14_with_activity_labels. svg)

Regarding the source of the study, the article says "Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno."

vacuum
11th July 2015, 12:17 AM
So lets assume the 2030s will really have a 60% drop in solar output, causing cooling.

From a global economics perspective, doesn't a drop in solar output kind of mean global economic output will also drop? It sounds like a big deal, I mean when you have to feed 8 billion people and all.

crimethink
11th July 2015, 01:18 AM
So lets assume the 2030s will really have a 60% drop in solar output, causing cooling.

From a global economics perspective, doesn't a drop in solar output kind of mean global economic output will also drop? It sounds like a big deal, I mean when you have to feed 8 billion people and all.

Yes, absolutely: decline in solar output means decline in agricultural production, including forestry and other non-food plant extraction. It's only 15 years away, but I have trouble seeing how we'll make it that far without a natural or unnatural disaster sending the humanoid population of Earth into sharp reverse. A new Maunder Minimum will likely be the least of our worries.

Santa
11th July 2015, 04:39 AM
Somehow, I find great global cataclysms and epic natural catastrophes to be comforting.

Horn
11th July 2015, 08:36 AM
Somehow, I find great global cataclysms and epic natural catastrophes to be comforting.

Not when its an attempted repackaging into manmade climate change, and then everyone is taxed into oblivion. My guess is the current global warming meme was meant to prove all science and governments incompetent lending itself into being compromised thru investment into false prophecy. TPB very aware and exploiting barycenter effects. A turning away from God/Sun, if you will, then sold into the general populace.

This guy has an entire site devoted to barycenter mechanics. imo only half the equation, dependent upon our current position relative to ort.

http://www.landscheidt.info/

singular_me
11th July 2015, 12:36 PM
Somehow, I find great global cataclysms and epic natural catastrophes to be comforting.

it has happened 10-12k years ago already and many times before that.... one has to wonder WHY bill gates and his cronies built seed vault in the ARCTIC!

(2013) http://www.nationofchange.org/bill-gates-and-gmo-cronies-plan-30-million-seed-vault-while-poisoning-planet-1373119522

http://fbreporter.org/2015/03/11/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-bill-gates-rockefeller-and-the-gmo-giants/

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/06/why-are-bill-gates-and-monsanto-funding.html


arguing about races is a distraction and ludicrous while they know that "something" is going to happen that may wipe out much of ALL races

expat4ever
11th July 2015, 01:18 PM
There's another guy who's done a lot of research into this as well. Has been an adviser to Nasa and he predicts the same thing. 2030 is the minimum but there's going to be some change on the way up to 2030 and that starts very soon, like by 2020 and doesn't end until around 2050 or so I think.

One interesting thing about the chart is if you look at the period from 1800 to about now its been relatively quiet and stable. The industrial revolution also started in the 1800's and now with our global warming the effects of the minimum may be offset somewhat. Look at the Oort minimum around 1050-1080 or so. If the next minimum is like that then I think it would barely have an effect. Canada and northern Europe may not be growing crops but the US still would be.
The last 2 winters I have seen temps colder than I can ever remember. -35 wind chills last winter. A couple years before that it felt like we didnt even have winter. If this cold trend in the winter continues than we may already be seeing the start and iirc the sunspot activity has been very low the last couple years as well.

Horn
11th July 2015, 01:49 PM
Seasonal output from u.s. would still be greatly reduced if there were little or no growth in Canada.

From all ive seen global warming has little or no counter effect. Is just heat island from the cities or roads. At altitude.

Horn
12th July 2015, 08:06 PM
Translated German


Published on Jul 10, 2015
July Frost there sometimes. How we could convince yourself it again so cool has become only 5 days after the heat wave, it was enough in a weak wind and clearnight frosts and locally even for low air Frost in the Eifel. Everything else is therein the video look.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB4Ce7dUB0Y#t=31

Horn
15th July 2015, 08:19 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKTZRjJFdXk