>>>This report is ridiculous, sunspots minimums have always occurred. These scientists are weighting in on the side of global warming, ignoring the cooling temps
Pardon me but you are being hysterical with such a strawman argument. Yes sunspot minimums have always occurred, I don’t see this story saying otherwise. The question is by what mechanism they occur. Something causes them. This proposes to name that mechanism and predict the timeframe. Right or wrong we’ll see soon enough.
Malpractice in the global warming argument by Gore et al isn’t good enough reason to shut down science generally, or solar science specifically.
>>>trying to pretend we have invisible sunspots that only they can see
Good lord. If a doctor has an x-ray machine and uses it to detect a tumor, do you sneer how impossible this is because you don’t see the tumor with your naked eye. Well come to think of it maybe you would. But few would join you post-Madame Curie. The world has many international astronomers who study the sun. Again, now they know to look for this they will find and confirm the currents, or disprove it and make a splash in the journals.
>>>This will not warm the planet back up so they can keep gouging the tax payer,
How would it warm the planet? Even if correct this theory won’t turn the sunspots on or off a moment before they are ready. As to gouging the taxpayer, NASA has an interest in how the sun works. It’s people and equipment in space are vulnerable to solar effects. If we can protect billion dollar satellites and priceless astronaut lives we probably come out ahead, “gouged” taxpayer wise. If this sunspot research is costing more then a single spacesuit I’d be surprised.
Of course if you are just grasping at straws being generally opposed to government research that’s another matter. But that ship sailed with Los Alamos. Too late.
I don't know why AGW is being read into this article. I posted this because the solar jet stream research is interesting and may help to explain the sun spot cycle.