Researchers Crack the Mystery of the Missing Sunspots - NASA Science
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/02mar_spotlesssun/
In 2008-2009, sunspots almost completely disappeared for two years. Solar activity dropped to hundred-year lows; Earth's upper atmosphere cooled and collapsed; the sun’s magnetic field weakened, allowing cosmic rays to penetrate the Solar System in record numbers. It was a big event, and solar physicists openly wondered, where have all the sunspots gone? . . .
Which makes me wonder: What sort of trends are active among humans during periods of peak solar activity, as opposed to those that stand out during periods of very low activity, such as the Maunder Minimum, an interval more or less spanning 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time?
For that matter, what type of trends were evident during the Little Ice Age, which included the Maunder Minimum, a period of cooling which, while not a true ice age, was a time of lower-than-average global temperatures (the term is conventionally defined as an interval extending from the 16th through the first half of the 19th centuries, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions; NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming), as opposed to the Medieval Warm Period, a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, lasting from about AD 950 to AD 1250.
If there's anything to astrology, then times of global cooling, such as the Little Ice Age, should show long-term and widespread patterns of human behavior distinct from those evident during periods of global warming, assuming that each of these two climate trends are associated with and at least influenced by distinct types of solar activity. (The latter would have to be determined in the case of each climatory interval (period of warming or period of cooling); if it was found that solar activity had little or no correlation with either type of interval, then we'd have to throw this theory out.) Astrologers who are truly serious about their discipline, and who realize that what they are studying is a branch of human ecology (where the environment under consideration is that of at least the entire Milky Way galaxy, though of course it is the nearer part of that environment, i.e., the Solar System, that is of greatest interest to the discipline as long as we do not leave the Solar System for interstellar space), should examine historical and cultural trends in various places in the world during periods of global warming and global cooling to discover what, if anything, distinguishes wide-scale, long-term human behavior in each type of period from that characteristic of the other type. If there are found to be no differences between the two types of interval, then it would appear that as a true discipline, astrology has some serious problems. But if there are real and significant differences in human behavior between the two types of climate periods, then further study to determine how exactly these break down, and what they are associated with (e.g., sunspot activity, increased or decreased input of radiant energy from the Sun, etc.) should be carried out. Such studies could also be extended to general studies of Earth's biota in relation to increased and decreased solar activity. Finally, studies should be carried out to see whether solar activity correlates well with changes in the overall geometry of the Solar System, especially with respect to the relative positions of planets from Saturn outward through the Kuiper Belt (whose angular velocity is very slow compared to that of the inner planets, and whose geometric relationships to one another thus change slowly), which, if it does, would imply that through their gravitational and/or electromagnetic effects on Sol, these planets do influence solar activity and, through it, life on Earth in predictable ways. If so, astrology could finally become a true objective life-science, recognized as a branch of human and general ecology and of astrobiology, and subjected to the same rigorous processes of testing and evaluation that all other sciences are. Otherwise, it should be tossed on the junk-heap of history. All disciplines study the same thing, the cosmos and all in it, and ultimately they should all agree, or at least not contradict one another. Those which persist in contradicting solid knowledge about reality are not worth pursuing; those which, however, do not ultimately contradict that knowledge are worth pursuing, and should be brought up to the highest standards of scientific rigor.
In 2008-2009, sunspots almost completely disappeared for two years. Solar activity dropped to hundred-year lows; Earth's upper atmosphere cooled and collapsed; the sun’s magnetic field weakened, allowing cosmic rays to penetrate the Solar System in record numbers. It was a big event, and solar physicists openly wondered, where have all the sunspots gone? . . .
Which makes me wonder: What sort of trends are active among humans during periods of peak solar activity, as opposed to those that stand out during periods of very low activity, such as the Maunder Minimum, an interval more or less spanning 1645 to 1715, when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time?
For that matter, what type of trends were evident during the Little Ice Age, which included the Maunder Minimum, a period of cooling which, while not a true ice age, was a time of lower-than-average global temperatures (the term is conventionally defined as an interval extending from the 16th through the first half of the 19th centuries, though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions; NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming), as opposed to the Medieval Warm Period, a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time, lasting from about AD 950 to AD 1250.
If there's anything to astrology, then times of global cooling, such as the Little Ice Age, should show long-term and widespread patterns of human behavior distinct from those evident during periods of global warming, assuming that each of these two climate trends are associated with and at least influenced by distinct types of solar activity. (The latter would have to be determined in the case of each climatory interval (period of warming or period of cooling); if it was found that solar activity had little or no correlation with either type of interval, then we'd have to throw this theory out.) Astrologers who are truly serious about their discipline, and who realize that what they are studying is a branch of human ecology (where the environment under consideration is that of at least the entire Milky Way galaxy, though of course it is the nearer part of that environment, i.e., the Solar System, that is of greatest interest to the discipline as long as we do not leave the Solar System for interstellar space), should examine historical and cultural trends in various places in the world during periods of global warming and global cooling to discover what, if anything, distinguishes wide-scale, long-term human behavior in each type of period from that characteristic of the other type. If there are found to be no differences between the two types of interval, then it would appear that as a true discipline, astrology has some serious problems. But if there are real and significant differences in human behavior between the two types of climate periods, then further study to determine how exactly these break down, and what they are associated with (e.g., sunspot activity, increased or decreased input of radiant energy from the Sun, etc.) should be carried out. Such studies could also be extended to general studies of Earth's biota in relation to increased and decreased solar activity. Finally, studies should be carried out to see whether solar activity correlates well with changes in the overall geometry of the Solar System, especially with respect to the relative positions of planets from Saturn outward through the Kuiper Belt (whose angular velocity is very slow compared to that of the inner planets, and whose geometric relationships to one another thus change slowly), which, if it does, would imply that through their gravitational and/or electromagnetic effects on Sol, these planets do influence solar activity and, through it, life on Earth in predictable ways. If so, astrology could finally become a true objective life-science, recognized as a branch of human and general ecology and of astrobiology, and subjected to the same rigorous processes of testing and evaluation that all other sciences are. Otherwise, it should be tossed on the junk-heap of history. All disciplines study the same thing, the cosmos and all in it, and ultimately they should all agree, or at least not contradict one another. Those which persist in contradicting solid knowledge about reality are not worth pursuing; those which, however, do not ultimately contradict that knowledge are worth pursuing, and should be brought up to the highest standards of scientific rigor.