OT Sun dimming.

[harry]

(Don't worry,it happens regularly).

[Brian Gaff]

Yes, and according to some the effect actually happened years ago inside but its taken all this time for the energy, ie light to find its way out. I gather we still don't fully understand how stars work

[Chris Hogg]

The comments below the article are worth reading as well.

There are several theories out there that suggest we're actually heading for another Maunder minimum, such as occurred during the big freeze of the little ice age,

. One of the best known theory is that of the Russian Abdussamatov , but there are others, most of which relate to variability in the sun's output as influenced by a double dynamo within the sun (Zharkova ) or the influence of the two most massive planets in our solar system, Jupiter and Saturn, on the sun's output as they orbit the sun with different periods and their gravities pull on the sun and distort it (Scafetta ).

These theories seem well founded and researched, and result in cyclic variations on the solar energy reaching the Earth's surface that fit the climate temperature data a lot better than CO2. A cyclic oscillation superimposed on a long-term linear rising trend would seem the best description so far.

I've just finished reading 'Mirrors and Mazes' by Howard Brady,

which outlines in fairly simple terms a number of alternative explanations to CO2 for the variation in global climate temperatures. I recommend it. Another book, edited by Marohasy, is Climate Change: The Facts 2017 which has some good chapters in it, but other chapters tend to be rather Oz specific.

It's a pity that many of us here, including me, won't be around long enough to find out what turns out to be the real answer.

[FMurtz]

It is all those solar panels sucking it out.

[Harry Bloomfield]

FMurtz pretended :

:-))

[dennis]

Well harry you have dismissed this in the past as you have claimed the solar output doesn't vary and doesn't contribute to climate change.

Are you now going to accept that it does contribute to climate change?

[dennis]

We know that a photon emitted in the suns core (where the reactions are taking place) will take about 1 million years to get to the surface.

Is that enough of an understanding for you?

[Tim Streater]

The mechanisms by which stars work are fully worked out. You can start here although how much of such articles are accessible to you I don't know.

[Brian Gaff]

Not really what I mean. For example if there is not enough mass to keep the sun to the, we cannot use its light output to tell this it will just blow up or go red giant one day. How can you tell how old a photon is? Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Have you read recent articles in both Nature and New scientist about the perplexing observations of old stars and black holes so far away, from current understandings, they should not have even existed, let alone lived their lives and spat out heavy elements yet. Something is most definitely not right. Brian

[Brian Gaff]

Well I do not really think we can afford to assume the sun dimming will counteract the abuse we do to the planet either. One other variable is this 9th planet which has come into the news again as the reason for so many new objects in orbit crossing trajectories. It has to be really dark and in a very elliptical orbit though to have only been seen by its gravity. Brian

[mechanic]

On uk.d-i-y there will be some claiming they do fully understand this. Amazing!

[Tim Streater]

It's too small to "blow up". It will go red giant in a few billion years.

Worry more about Betelgeuse going supernova sometime in the next million years. It'll be about as bright as the moon when it does, for a few weeks/months.

Don't they have birth certificates? Dear oh dear. Still, Jezza will fix that.

Have a look here:

[charles]

and, it being a DIY group, someone will claim to have made one ;-)

[dennis]

You know how fast it travels.. how far it can travel before it hits something and gets absorbed.. which random direction it will be emitted in.. so you can work out how long it takes to get from the core to the surface (on average).

[dennis]

Its the ones that claim global warming was caused by CO2 that ignore factors like the variable output of the sun.

If you look at the NASA graphs (I know you can't) then they have peak outputs which coincide with rises in global temperatures.

This may be a coincidence or it might be a cause but ignoring it is not science even if it is climate "science".

[harry]

It's an eleven year cycle shit-fer-brains. This has been known about fora hundred years.

[Nightjar]

The 11 year (actually 9-14 years) cycle is the best known cycle, but there is also one averaging 87 (70-100 years) years and others suggested from radiocarbon records of around 210 years, 2,300 years and, possibly,

6,000 years.

[dennis]

No it hasn't. NASA didn't have the technology to measure it. People like you have denied its existence as you will continue to do so after its contribution to climate change emerges. In fact you have already denied its existence in previous posts but you have obviously forgotten about that.

[Bill Wright]

Another unintended consequence of the current fad is that the windmills are slowing the wind, so the washing won't dry. That means we have to put it in the 3kW tumble drier.

Bill