The coming ice age?

[wayneL]

2. what core problems ? - are you admitting something or speculating? -

maybe you're referring to general pollution? hell , we have to try.

The Western overly consumptive lifestyle and the imperitives of the monetary system to encourage the same. Pollution is the result, not the cause.

3. wayne
I haven't mentioned Al Gore for yonks - Ever since you started using his alleged hypocrisy as reason enough to dismiss any message he may or may not have – and objected to his winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

So instead, I refer to the IPCC (the other half of that Nobel Prize) and the likes of Suzuki.

Al serves as proxy for the whole GW vested interest cabal. Like I said, follow the money.

4. And you're right, I'd probably trust Suzuki much more than I'd trust Gore.

Me too, his message is more holistic and encompasses a broad range of issues, just a shame he has fallen for the IPCC sectarian version of AGW as it dilutes his true value as an environmental campaigner.

PS
5. As for people who support companies with large environmental footprint – I guess that would apply to shareholders who hold BHP – and let’s not even mention the Ok Tedi disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_Environmental_Disaster

Would I still put my money on BHP if I thought their price was gonna go up? Course I would. (unless they did another Ok Tedi) . And concurrently vote in a govt that might ratify Kyoto and /or incentives to reduce their effect on the environment. Maybe BHP will be incentivated to get into cleaner technology and make a fortune selling it as world leaders. (as Aus potentially could be here if we wished … if you believe Garnaut anyways ).

Shareholders, unless they actually have participated in a capital raising, do not contribute to the company's balance sheet in any way. Perhaps it could be viewed as hypocritical to profit from their activities via holding shares, but a debate for another thread.

Contractors to BHP (as proxy for all polluting public companies) are a different matter as they are active participants and therefore contributers to the alleged problem.

I don't believe people can bang the AGW drum and simultaneously work for/with BHP and maintain any sort of integrity.

IMO

 

[2020hindsight]

Renewables - The ALL have a conservation downside just like the Franklin. Clean power for sure, and that is all the Franklin was ever about, but it comes at a price in terms of something else.

Wind turbines could very well lead to outright exitinction of some bird species. That's a rather big price to pay for some intermittent power generation.

Solar pollutes massively in manufacture. It isn't seriously a clean option at all.

Hydro - we all know what that involves and indeed it literally started the world's first Green party.

Biomass - Do the math and you'll realise it just doesn't work unless we're talking about native forest clearfelling to fuel power stations which is hardly what I'd call a good alternative to anything.

Wave - Just wait until the Greens start about the coast line.

Tidal - That's just a dam built at sea level.

Nuclear - Again, the greens don't want that either.

Geothermal - that means lots of long distance transmission lines. These are, of course, opposed by the greens.

ALL POWER POLLUTES. ALL. ...

....
The Franklin is by far the best example of all of this and that's why I refer to it. ...
In my opinion fear of that is why the Greens themselves keep mentioning it every few months - to shore up the position that it's saved....
It's sustainability versus conservation. ....
Hence the issue I have with conservationists opposed to everything ....

smurf
good summary - my point was probably that you are at risk of equating the tasmanian greens with IPCC. IPCC would I'm sure be happy to discuss nuclear for instance. (plenty of graphs already presented)

Personally I believe Aus - like most of the world - will be nuclear within 100years ((just as France is 75% nuclear as we speak). But in the meantime, (cos that ain't gonna happen yet it seems) let's look at clean energy options, even the carbon capture stuff I guess (though I have reservations, despite the wholehearted embrace of the Aus Coal Industry).

PS All POWER POLLUTES ?
does that mean that ABSOLUTE POWER POLLUTES ABSOLUTELY?

BHP shareholders vs BHP and their contractors

As for BHP in say the iron ore industry .... where all of Australia rides on the miners' backs these days ...

If you could charge them (which you strictly can't) with the "sins" of the Chinese smelters because they are in the same industry - then their footprint would be much larger.

But likewise they mine uranium, which is one of the cleanest of all energies - and the only practical one imo for the power requirements of a modern world -

so with that approach, - averaging across those two - they probably come out looking pretty good.

Simply mining the stuff (either coal, oil, or uranium) is the clean end of the chain.

this thread

Hey if a 2 or 3 month delay in the arrival of the first solar sunspot is gonna herald a mild 11 year solar cycle (bold claim) maybe two (bolder still) then that would indeed be a major cause for celebration. Bludy unlikely it would trigger an ice age you'd think - but might buy us some time to get our act together here on Earth with some sustainability instead of a lemming-like charge into a pretty sick looking future.

 

[Smurf1976]

smurf
good summary - my point was probably that you are at risk of equating the tasmanian greens with IPCC. IPCC would I'm sure be happy to discuss nuclear for instance. (plenty of graphs already presented)

Personally I believe Aus - like most of the world - will be nuclear within 100years ((just as France is 75% nuclear as we speak). But in the meantime, (cos that ain't gonna happen yet it seems) let's look at clean energy options, even the carbon capture stuff I guess (though I have reservations, despite the wholehearted embrace of the Aus Coal Industry).

PS All POWER POLLUTES ?
does that mean that ABSOLUTE POWER POLLUTES ABSOLUTELY?

The Tasmanian Greens are a proxy for the Green movement in general much like McDonalds is for take away food. Love them or loath them, the Tasmanian Greens are simply the current version of what was the world's first Green political party.

In the Australian context, that party, Bob brown and the Greens in general are, politically, the dominant face of the Australian environmental movement.

The primary problem I have with them is their focus on dams, forests, pulp mills and so on. All of which are examples of substantially or totally reversible damage. Meanwhile they support the constant growth of aviation, the ulitmate example of permanent damage to the environment. Hence I see it as conservation (dams, forests, pulp mills) on one side, sustainability (aviation, oil, gas etc) on the other.

The Australian environmental politicians focus almost exclusively on conservation, often at the expense of sustainability. The general pattern being save the river / forest or whatever and develop mass tourism as an economic alternative. That's an awful lot of aviation fuel they're burning and CO2 produced in order to conserve something that could be restored far more easily than oil can be put back in the ground or CO2 taken from the air.

As for nuclear power, to be perfectly honest I think we'll end up using every power source that works. That's certainly the track we're on. We'll drill, dam, mine, farm and react everything we can to keep the lights on and the wheels turning. I'm not advocating it, but I think it will happen as we won't give up on constant growth easily given that the entire economic system depends on it.

 

[doogie_goes_off]

For the record, I've seen the river and I'd prefer it flowing naturally rather than trough turbines from a purely conservation perspective.

There is only one reason for mentioning it and it's NOT advocating that the dam be built. It's this:

We use fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas, only because they are the easy option. You just build the factory, power station, car or whatever and buy fuel to run it. Easy. And there's no radioactive waste to store, minimal non-CO2 air pollution and not even any ash to dispose of. Oil and gas are easy in every way.

But oil and gas are limited and that's the problem. They also add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere. If we're going to use ANYTHING else then there's a downside somewhere.

Coal - Even more CO2 plus ash, smoke and all the rest.

Renewables - The ALL have a conservation downside just like the Franklin. Clean power for sure, and that is all the Franklin was ever about, but it comes at a price in terms of something else.

Wind turbines could very well lead to outright exitinction of some bird species. That's a rather big price to pay for some intermittent power generation.

Solar pollutes massively in manufacture. It isn't seriously a clean option at all.

Hydro - we all know what that involves and indeed it literally started the world's first Green party.

Biomass - Do the math and you'll realise it just doesn't work unless we're talking about native forest clearfelling to fuel power stations which is hardly what I'd call a good alternative to anything.

Wave - Just wait until the Greens start about the coast line.

Tidal - That's just a dam built at sea level.

Nuclear - Again, the greens don't want that either.

Geothermal - that means lots of long distance transmission lines. These are, of course, opposed by the greens.

ALL POWER POLLUTES. ALL. And Every non-oil / gas option involves some form of pollution that is far more visible than CO2 whether it be dead birds, dams, clearfelled forests or transmission lines running everywhere.

Bottom line is that we will not fix the CO2 problem unless we accept some other form of environmental impact instead or end the notion of constant growth. With mainstream environmentalists opposing any form of non-CO2 impact and not pushing for an end to growth, it just doesn't work.

As has been said many times in relation to that dam, either we develop renewables in some form or it's a triple F - Fossil Fuels Forever.

People support cutting CO2 in principle. Just wait until they realise what it actually involves. Odds are many of the anti-CO2 people will be out there protesting wind farms, transmission lines, diesel cars, nuclear all forms of hydro power and everything else that could actually help the situation.

The Franklin is by far the best example of all of this and that's why I refer to it. Consider for a moment if that debate were being held today - it wouldn't be dams versus the wilderness but climate change versus a river. I don't know anyone, conservationists included, who is confident what the outcome of such a debate would be. Practically every single issue that was relevant last time isn't relevant now so it would be a very different debate.

In my opinion fear of that is why the Greens themselves keep mentioning it every few months - to shore up the position that it's saved. Not that anyone's proposing to dam it, but it's clear to all that there's a massive shift afoot in underlying community attitudes towards energy and the environment in general, the implications of which are not clear for that specific issue.

It's sustainability versus conservation. If you do not accept some modification of the natural environment beyond that which is already happening then you can't develop any significant renewable energy. And if we don't develop renewables then we're stuck with fossil fuels. Hence the issue I have with conservationists opposed to everything - the Franklin is simply by far the best known example, a bit like saying "Detroit" when you really mean the US car manufacturing industry in general.

SMURF - you are flogging a dead horse somewhat and for my i've seen the Franklin 8 times by water and 2 times by air, for what it's worth I think Gordon below Franklin would not have been a disaster, just a shame that we all would have had to live with to support our power hungry lifestyle. Anyway it's protected, get on with the rest of the debate.

Forget conservation for conservations sake, it needs justification. The real debate is more broadly sustainability v's recognisable capacity. If CO2 emissions are unsustainable (no real evidence yet) then we need to look at relatively "sustainable" energy options like some of those you mentioned ie: harness energy from things with long term potential energy.

My preference is for geothermal, however, will this ultimately lead to heating the atmosphere and encouraging a greenhouse effect (no study done yet that I've heard of - one for the environmental scientists). My other preference is for modern tidal. No you don't need a dam, that's old school, we are talking propellers in the current and if housed properly no dead fish (better than killing migratory birds).

Basically we need very long term solutions not short to medium term cycle solutions such as biofuel (short) and dams (medium term).

Note - all power generation needs metal whether it be steel for pipes or copper wire for transmission. If you want power, heat, hot water, lights and the occasional electric massage ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES.

Also - you can become part of the solution - how? by micro-power generation, start your own windmill, it may not be totally efficient like a 65m tall three bladed monster but just harness some energy locally. Also consider the creek nearest you, does it run very often, do you have a right to plonk a small paddle wheel in it? Consider heating water on your north facing roof before it goes into your hot water cylinder etc. BECOME PART OF THE SOLUTION IF YOU REALLY CARE.

 

[disarray]

nuclear is the best option by far. modern plants are very safe and efficient, we have an abundance of uranium, and plenty of wide open spaces to store the waste. and the waste won't be an issue for long anyway as we'll just be able to send it into the sun. i don't understand the objections to nuclear power when we compare it to our current situation and options.

 

[nioka]

The Tasmanian Greens are a proxy for the Green movement in general much like McDonalds is for take away food. Love them or loath them, the Tasmanian Greens are simply the current version of what was the world's first Green political party.

In the Australian context, that party, Bob brown and the Greens in general are, politically, the dominant face of the Australian environmental movement.

The primary problem I have with them is their focus on dams, forests, pulp mills and so on. All of which are examples of substantially or totally reversible damage. Meanwhile they support the constant growth of aviation, the ulitmate example of permanent damage to the environment. Hence I see it as conservation (dams, forests, pulp mills) on one side, sustainability (aviation, oil, gas etc) on the other.

The Australian environmental politicians focus almost exclusively on conservation, often at the expense of sustainability. The general pattern being save the river / forest or whatever and develop mass tourism as an economic alternative. That's an awful lot of aviation fuel they're burning and CO2 produced in order to conserve something that could be restored far more easily than oil can be put back in the ground or CO2 taken from the air.
.

The greens have done more to damage the enviroment than they have done to save it.

By the pressure to save forests they have saved some and caused the ruin of many others. Every time the timber harvesting forestry department did a good job or managing forests the greens protested at any logging and had the forest taken from the forestry and placed in the hands of the national parks. This has caused the forestry to concentrate on clear felling and mono culture forestry. A lot of the national parks that I visit now are in worse condition now than they were when they were regularly logged. A lot of national parks could easily be managed better with some timber harvesting. A lot of the forests would have been better for the enviroment and biodiversity if managed as native forests.

As far as dams are concerned the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. Visit any dam in Australia and you will find a scenic visiting spot with boating, fishing and camping which will out do any of the previous natural facilities. That is before you look at the financial employment and lifestyle benefits that the management of the water creates. I say damn the greenies and dam some more rivers.

 

[Smurf1976]

SMURF - you are flogging a dead horse somewhat

As I said, I'm NOT advocating building that or any other dam. Just making the point that if you want power then something somewhere suffers some sort of impact. If you don't want that impact to be CO2 then you have to accept some other impact be it nuclear, dams, wind or whatever.

There ain't no free lunch and there ain't no pollution free power. All that changes is who pays and what form the pollution takes.

 

[spooly74]

As I said, I'm NOT advocating building that or any other dam. Just making the point that if you want power then something somewhere suffers some sort of impact. If you don't want that impact to be CO2 then you have to accept some other impact be it nuclear, dams, wind or whatever.

There ain't no free lunch and there ain't no pollution free power. All that changes is who pays and what form the pollution takes.

Somewhat off topic but the attached video is a lecture by Craig Venter, a biologist involved in genetics.
He talks about his research into "fourth-generation fuels" (amongst other things ) -- biologically created fuels using CO2 as their feedstock.
Basically, he sees a future of taking captured CO2 from sites and converting it to methane to drive the process in real time.
Thinks they might have the first 4th generation fuels in 18 months.

Limited only by a biological reality and their imagination

Welcome to the future of genetics :hide:

Over a 30 min video - relevant from about 10 - 15 mins.

 

[numbercruncher]

Sounds pretty exciting.

But isnt Methane one of the worst greenhouse gases ? maybe after its combusted it becomes something nicer ? I cant seem to get my sound working so cant listen to story ):

 

[numbercruncher]

Yah heres some bad news re methane ...

WASHINGTON (AFP) ”” Global greenhouse gas emissions including main offender carbon dioxide rose in 2007 despite efforts to curb them, a US government agency said.

Atmospheric CO2 increased by 0.6 percent or 19 billion tonnes over 2006 levels, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said in preliminary data from its annual update to its greenhouse gas index.

"Viewed another way, last year's carbon dioxide increase means 2.4 molecules of the gas were added to every million molecules of air, boosting the global concentration to nearly 385 parts per million (ppm)," a NOAA statement said.

In the pre-industrial era, until 1850, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 280 ppm, the agency said.

Since 2000, carbon dioxide has increased two ppm a year on average, compared to 1.5 ppm per year in the 1980s and less than one ppm per year in the 1960s.

The burning of coal, oil and natural gas is the main source of carbon dioxide emissions. Oceans, vegetation and soils absorb about one half of all CO2 emissions, while the rest persists in the atmosphere for centuries.

About 20 percent of CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels in 2007 will likely remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, according to the latest scientific assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change.

Other than CO2 -- the key driver of global warming -- atmospheric levels of methane, another greenhouse gas, rose 20 million tonnes last year after a decade of remaining static, the NOAA said.

Methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 but there is much less of it in the atmosphere, so its overall impact on climate is roughly half that of CO2.

NOAA scientist Ed Dlugokencky said the sudden rise in methane levels in 2007 was probably due to rapid industrial growth in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and the tropics.
NOAA tracks data from 60 sites around the world to compile its annual greenhouse gas index.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWQzGPVOi1jaokoAG24HLH2tU61w

 

[spooly74]

Sounds pretty exciting.

But isnt Methane one of the worst greenhouse gases ? maybe after its combusted it becomes something nicer ? I cant seem to get my sound working so cant listen to story ):

Methane is a major part of natural gas.

"By using methane produced by bacteria as a fuel source, we can reduce the amount released into the atmosphere and use up some carbon dioxide in the process!"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210103934.htm

 

[metric]

Russia Prepares for an ice age

A Cold War That Russia Can Win
4 Feb 09 - In January, Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton announced
that she would use the office to fight global warming. As she spoke, the Russian government was preparing to release a massive study much more concerned with the prospect of a global ice age.

http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2009/2/4/a-cold-war-that-russia-can-win.html

Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age
22 Jan 08 (Excerpts) Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti Tuesday.

http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
11 Jan 09- Pravda - The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea
sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, says Russian scientists. The data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age
Short video (6 minutes) about the coming ice age.
I especially agree with climatologist George Kukla, an ice-age alarmist
since the early 1970s, who still thinks an ice age is imminent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

Global warming laws could cost every family a staggering £20,000 (US$40,000)
6 May 09 - "Sooner or later, even our loathsome media are going to put two
and two together. Then, those idiot politicians who have embraced the global
warming scam are going to look even more stupid than they do already. The
reckoning may be delayed, but it will come.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ds-global-warming-law-cost-20-000-family.html

 

[Happy]

On a positive side, global warmers if they start their carbon schemes, for a while will be able to blow their trumpets that they saved the Earth from the catastrophe of global warming.

 

[metric]

remember the below article...? well its a year later, and STILL NO SUNSPOTS.......

and nearly every country on earth has either recorded a record for cold or snow.....

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008
Article from: The Australian

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-5018542,00.html


.

 

[Smurf1976]

remember the below article...? well its a year later, and STILL NO SUNSPOTS.......

and nearly every country on earth has either recorded a record for cold or snow.....

I'd have to say it's been quite noticeable locally. For the first time in years, the Autumn "rain hole" hasn't happened this year and the grass is green everywhere you look.

Coincidence maybe but I do not that the "rain hole" emerged in line with rising temperature globally and seems to have disappeared when it fell. That's a multi-decade trend and not a one off annual event.

Rain hole? That's the near total disappearance of Autumn rain in much of Tas when the planet was heating up. Not 5 or 10% down, but truly massive declines compared to historical averages. This year's been pretty wet so far though.

 

[Soft Dough]

remember the below article...? well its a year later, and STILL NO SUNSPOTS.......

and nearly every country on earth has either recorded a record for cold or snow.....
.

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Well not NO sunspots, just no solarcycle 24 sunspots.

It is interesting that the predicted peak seems to be decreasing iirc.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

 

[Pat]

I'd have to say it's been quite noticeable locally. For the first time in years, the Autumn "rain hole" hasn't happened this year and the grass is green everywhere you look.

Coincidence maybe but I do not that the "rain hole" emerged in line with rising temperature globally and seems to have disappeared when it fell. That's a multi-decade trend and not a one off annual event.

Rain hole? That's the near total disappearance of Autumn rain in much of Tas when the planet was heating up. Not 5 or 10% down, but truly massive declines compared to historical averages. This year's been pretty wet so far though.

What is the Autumn "rain hole"?

Isn't La Nina the explanation for the wet?

 

[Smurf1976]

What is the Autumn "rain hole"?

Isn't La Nina the explanation for the wet?

In short, it is a sharp, consistent trend of declining Autumn rainfall (total March - May) across most of Tasmania commencing since the mid -1970's.

On a 5 year chart it is an almost perfect linear trend in many locations. A cumulative annual loss of about 1.5% of pre-1975 rainfall seemingly unaffected by changes in El Niño / La Nina cycles, cloud seeding or any other known natural or man-made non-temperature occurrences.

It does however correspond fairly well with changes in global temperature, particularly the starting in the 1970's when temperatures started to rise.

The actual form has generally taken that of a period centred on March - April of close to zero rain with a sharp ramp to normal on either side. In recent years it has at times persisted into Winter. Hence the "hole" - it's as though someone just turns off the rain and then turns it back to normal again.

The annual loss is less than 10% but in Autumn it had reached over 40% and rising in many key areas of the state.

Practical effects thus far have been on agriculture, water supply and power generation. An outright fortune has been and is planned to be spent on irrigation schemes, urban water supply, fuel for thermal power stations and the like to offset the effects.

There's no real explanation for this other than that it does correspond very much with changes in the earth's temperature. And sure enough, now that the temperature has dropped the rain seems to have come back.

A similar situation occurred in SW WA decades ago with an abrupt, literally in the space of months, huge permanent reduction in rainfall there. That wasn't at all gradual, high rainfalls just basically stopped in WA and thus far they haven't come back. Given that it's been a few decades, it's assumed to be permanent.

New Zealand also seems to have experienced an increasing frequency of low Autumn rains judging by the effects on water storage etc. I don't have hard data for the actual rainfall, but they've certainly had more trouble with it than they did historically.

 

[metric]

aaaahhh...just leave them there.!!!!

Arctic Global Warming Activists to be Rescued
__________________

1
12 May 09 – (Excerpts) The three British global warming activists who headed off for the North Pole in February hoping to draw attention to the thinning aren’t doing so hot.

Although they’re still 300 miles short of reaching their goal - the North Pole - the three now plan to be “lifted off the ice” by the end of this week because it’s just simply too cold. – too cold to keep going and too cold to get the measurements they intended.

“Following the daily reports of ice, cold, frostbite, hypothermia, pain and general misery being endured by the team – even the most daft newspaper reporter must be aware now that the Arctic is a very cold and icy place.”
See entire article:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/arctic-activists-to-be-rescued/

 

[metric]

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Well not NO sunspots, just no solarcycle 24 sunspots.

It is interesting that the predicted peak seems to be decreasing iirc.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

we usually have 50,000 sunspots per year. and just like during the maunder minimum we are at less than 50 (!) for the year passed.......and right now, NO sunspots.

Days since last "official" sunspot: 12

From the Space Weather Prediction Center
Updated 2009 May 12 2201 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

SDF Number 132 Issued at 2200Z on 12 May 2009

Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 11/2100Z to 12/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares were detected. The visible disk was spotless.

Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low.

Geophysical Activity Summary 11/2100Z to 12/2100Z: Geomagnetic field activity was at quiet levels.

Geophysical Activity Forecast: Geomagnetic field activity is expected to be quiet for the next three days (13 - 15 May).

[Latest Report]

http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm