Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() What more could they possibly add? That we may be experiencing the beginning of another "Maunder Minimum"? Possibly. All indicators are down not just the sunspots. Time will tell. The drop in solar wind is kind of scary. Hopefully, this will just last another couple of years at most otherwise we will be spending the rest of our lives going through another "Maunder Minimum". dave wrote: If the solar winds get much weaker we won't be around to worry about some stupid glaciers. From Wikipedia: "Earth itself is largely *protected* [emphasis added] from the solar wind by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles..." If the solar wind is something we need to be protected from, why would a -weaker- solar wind put us in danger, as you seem to be implying? (If the solar wind got -stronger-, more than our magnetosphere could cope with, yes, then there would be danger). Please 'splain. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Billy Burpelson wrote:
What more could they possibly add? That we may be experiencing the beginning of another "Maunder Minimum"? Possibly. All indicators are down not just the sunspots. Time will tell. The drop in solar wind is kind of scary. Hopefully, this will just last another couple of years at most otherwise we will be spending the rest of our lives going through another "Maunder Minimum". dave wrote: If the solar winds get much weaker we won't be around to worry about some stupid glaciers. From Wikipedia: "Earth itself is largely *protected* [emphasis added] from the solar wind by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles..." If the solar wind is something we need to be protected from, why would a -weaker- solar wind put us in danger, as you seem to be implying? (If the solar wind got -stronger-, more than our magnetosphere could cope with, yes, then there would be danger). Please 'splain. "Although a weakening of the solar wind may not sound very important, the effects of this reduction will have serious implications, diminishing the natural defences of the heliopause (our Solar System’s invisible barrier) which protects us from high energy cosmic rays blasting through intergalactic space…" http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09...at-record-low/ |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Billy Burpelson wrote: What more could they possibly add? That we may be experiencing the beginning of another "Maunder Minimum"? Possibly. All indicators are down not just the sunspots. Time will tell. The drop in solar wind is kind of scary. Hopefully, this will just last another couple of years at most otherwise we will be spending the rest of our lives going through another "Maunder Minimum". dave wrote: If the solar winds get much weaker we won't be around to worry about some stupid glaciers. From Wikipedia: "Earth itself is largely *protected* [emphasis added] from the solar wind by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles..." If the solar wind is something we need to be protected from, why would a -weaker- solar wind put us in danger, as you seem to be implying? (If the solar wind got -stronger-, more than our magnetosphere could cope with, yes, then there would be danger). Please 'splain. dave wrote: "Although a weakening of the solar wind may not sound very important, the effects of this reduction will have serious implications, diminishing the natural defences of the heliopause (our Solar System’s invisible barrier) which protects us from high energy cosmic rays blasting through intergalactic space…" quoted from: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09...at-record-low/ Thanks for the quote...but I believe the original author is being a little bit of an alarmist. Yes, the heliosphere (created by the solar wind) does indeed somewhat moderate the cosmic rays reaching the earth. However: 1) Most of the cosmic moderation is done by the earth's magnetosphere, not the heliosphere. 2) The intensity of the solar wind normally varies significantly; i.e., we can't always count on it in any event. 3) Of the 2.3 milliSieverts of background radiation received on earth annually, only 0.3 mSv is from "cosmic" sources, and of that 0.3 mSv, only a small, variable amount is taken care of by the heliosphere (with the magnetosphere doing the bulk of the work). So again, I think the original author is being a bit of an alarmist because the solar wind/heliosphere does not give us -that- much protection. Now if you want to worry, worry about the strength of our magnetosphere going low. :-) |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Billy Burpelson" wrote in message ... So again, I think the original author is being a bit of an alarmist because the solar wind/heliosphere does not give us -that- much protection. Now if you want to worry, worry about the strength of our magnetosphere going low. :-) Which some scientists say is overdue (a polarity shift/switch). This has supposedly happened at least one other time since life appeared on Earth, so it wouldn't be an extinction level event.. but would sure mess things up for a few hundred to a few thousand years. |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Dobbs wrote:
Maybe a bit out there but do you think the early stages of reversal we're supposed to be experiencing now might be connected to the phenomenon called "Colony Collapse Disorder"? http://tinyurl.com/3ydz9o Monsanto |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SolderSmoke #30: Solar pwr, IRF 510 amp, QST 50, BITX20, rockbound rigs, solar min? | Boatanchors | |||
SolderSmoke #30: Solar pwr, IRF 510 amp, QST 50, BITX20, rockbound rigs, solar min? | Homebrew | |||
DX on 10 meters? Solar min looking like solar max? | Dx | |||
Solar Minimum in 2006? | Shortwave | |||
FA: Swan 350 $15 minimum bid! | Boatanchors |