The Little Ice Age May Never Come

21 05 2010

But in 1610, Galileo observed them in detail as they moved across the solar sphere. That happened some 30 years before the sunspots all but disappeared during the Maunder minimum, a 70-year period of diminished solar activity that lasted from 1645 to 1715. (Astronomy, June 2010, pg 25) Since then, observers have watched 23 cycles come and go. ‘In March 2007, I predicted cycle 24 would be at least a year late.’ says UCLA solar physicist Roger Ulrich, who also began observing the Sun in 1986. (ibid., 26) We’ve beat the 1905 extended solar minimum. The end of the Maunder minimum was the last time we had a cycle this long. But I think we’ve [now] coming into a period of rising solar activity. (ibid.) Christoph Scheiner observed the Sun starting in 1611, about the same time as Galileo. The two scientists described dark spots, moving across our stars surface. (ibid.) But some solar researchers believe Earth’s own climate mechanisms could amplify any temperature changes in ways that solar physicists and climatologists still don’t completely understand. (ibid., 26-7) The Little Ice Age brought unusually cold weather to much of northern Europe from 1500 to 1850… The lack of sunspots during the Maunder minimum may have exacerbated this 350-year-old spell… Some researchers think volcanic ash might have triggered the Little Ice Age, and then the Maunder minimum amplified the effect. (ibid., 27)

As I mentioned before, the sun is not being classified as a living thing under my scientific hypothesis “Lives in different levels”. Instead of a higher level of living thing (i.e. planets), the sun is being compared with the “living tissues” of our universe (i.e. a mother cell), which similar to the organs of our bodies. By referring to my first article published after my graduation – “Similarities of Lives” available at, I am herewith to clarify the position of sun in my scientific hypothesis is identical to an “organ (which similar to those inside our bodies)” or “living tissues” of the universe. She is burning – or I have to say – sacrificing herself to rear the offspring (i.e. planets – our planet earth – a living thing in a relatively low level). Applying this case onto our situations, the (Mother) Earth is consuming herself to “rear” the humankind as well as all the other animals, which is a lower level of lives. It is a REARING behavior. Hence, it may help us to understand more about our universe.  Although it seems to be very strange, it is actually a very reasonable claim for the occurrence of lives on this planet. It illustrated the whole natural mechanism and the most important that it really works in science – you can refer to the recent developments of neuroscience and whole-cell biology. Undoubtedly, it has widened the definitions of “lives”. Furthermore, the assumption “the earth is a supreme being without violating any natural rules” also tells us one fact: we may all going to a total extinction because a living being cannot violate the natural process of lives as all of us do – that is (creation by) birth, growth (in this case, it refers to evolution), and death (in this case, a total extinction). Please never neglect the significance of this hypothesis. It is a great pushing factor for green movement (esp. the establishment of recycle networks) and the strict birth-control measures. It is not a pseudoscience. “Truth is something you can see.” Our imaginations (including empty talks on soul) are bringing us a mass destruction.

If humankind failed to spot the physical presence of the God (a conscious earth), we would have no future generations.