Sun's fickle heart may leave us cold

[aurora]

25 January 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Stuart Clark


There's a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years - exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. So says a physicist who has created a computer model of our star's core.
Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, modelled the effect of temperature fluctuations in the sun's interior. According to the standard view, the temperature of the sun's core is held constant by the opposing pressures of gravity and nuclear fusion. However, Ehrlich believed that slight variations should be possible.
He took as his starting point the work of Attila Grandpierre of the Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In 2005, Grandpierre and a collaborator, Gábor

 

[fungusfitzjuggler]

More mere speculation masquarading as "science".
The sun is electric not nuclear. Still only a theory but one which has a far better fit to the facts of temp and so forth than a nuclear sun.
Yes there are magnetic eddies in the sun.
The sun has been imaged by x-ray telescopes. The variation in output is evident toi the eye and astonishing. But that is x-radiation. We do not appear to have measured enough of other than visible radiation to even speculate that a red dwarf or any other is in any way analogous to Sol. If we had we would appreciate the variations that occur are many and varied and it would take massive resources to extrapolate to 100,000 years. But that idea is based on the premise that the solar system has not changed in many millions of years. There is no proof for this. In fact it is wrong. By taking the evidence of change, in frequency of ice ages, this scientist is saying that they are caused by solar output alone.
The quality of thought displayed is lamentable. I presume he wants to predict when we are going to get another ice age? Why doesn't he cut to the chase and decide how to adjust solar output and/or earth cooling? Is there a barrier to certain scientific projects? Is it that bureaucratic grant making bodies only approve "science" that cannot rock the boat?

To whose advantage?

The Irish have a saying: "paper never refused ink"

Pointless speculation designed to divert attention from profitable research. New Scientist should be ashamed. It is degenerating into a rag. How sad.

 

[ark]

More mere speculation masquarading as "science".
The sun is electric not nuclear. Still only a theory but one which has a far better fit to the facts of temp and so forth than a nuclear sun.

Which facts?

Yes there are magnetic eddies in the sun.
The sun has been imaged by x-ray telescopes.

Where are the data?

The variation in output is evident toi the eye and astonishing. But that is x-radiation. We do not appear to have measured enough of other than visible radiation to even speculate that a red dwarf or any other is in any way analogous to Sol.

Who sez so? On waich basis? Where are the data?

If we had we would appreciate the variations that occur are many and varied and it would take massive resources to extrapolate to 100,000 years.

Yes we extrapolate to millions years. What is the age of the earth? Do you know it?

But that idea is based on the premise that the solar system has not changed in many millions of years. There is no proof for this.

There is no proof that Sun exists.

In fact it is wrong. By taking the evidence of change, in frequency of ice ages, this scientist is saying that they are caused by solar output alone.

Who tells you that you should believe scientists? Do you know the history of science?

The quality of thought displayed is lamentable.

Indeed. It should concern some people, but evidently it does not.

I presume he wants to predict when we are going to get another ice age? Why doesn't he cut to the chase and decide how to adjust solar output and/or earth cooling? Is there a barrier to certain scientific projects? Is it that bureaucratic grant making bodies only approve "science" that cannot rock the boat?

The problem is not so much with scientists, but with politicians and disinfo agencies.

Please, next time you post something and state something - provide the data and reliable sources. Otherwise you are simply expressing your beliefs, and this is not the right forum for believers.