The sun has nothing to do with global warming...
-- Newsweek.
How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges Into The Quietest Solar Minimum In A Century
I'm sure I remember all number of people telling me during various discussions about AGW that there had been nothing unusual about the last 50 years of solar activity yet here we haveScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2009) — The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.
The year 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73 percent). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.
Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87 percent).
It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
"This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees forecaster David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
Quiet suns come along every 11 years or so. It's a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-1800s. Sunspots are planet-sized islands of magnetism on the surface of the sun, and they are sources of solar flares, coronal mass ejections, and intense UV radiation. Plotting sunspot counts, Schwabe saw that peaks of solar activity were always followed by valleys of relative calm—a clockwork pattern that has held true for more than 200 years.
The current solar minimum is part of that pattern. In fact, it's right on time. But is it supposed to be this quiet?
Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20 percent drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays penetrate the solar system, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft have also shown that the sun's brightness has dimmed by 0.02 percent at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6 percent at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects.
Earth's upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less "puffed up." Satellites in Earth orbit experience less atmospheric drag, extending their operational lifetimes. That’s the good news. Unfortunately, space junk also remains in orbit longer, posing an increased threat to useful satellites.
Finally, radio telescopes are recording the dimmest "radio sun" since 1955. After World War II, astronomers began keeping records of the sun's brightness at radio wavelengths, particularly 10.7 cm. Some researchers believe that the lessening of radio emissions during this solar minimum is an indication of weakness in the sun's global magnetic field. No one is certain, however, because the source of these long-monitored radio emissions is not fully understood.
All these lows have sparked a debate about whether the ongoing minimum is extreme or just an overdue market correction following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.
"Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not used to this kind of deep calm."
Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than what we're experiencing now. To match those minima in depth and longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.
In a way, the calm is exciting, says Pesnell. "For the first time in history, we're getting to observe a deep solar minimum." A fleet of spacecraft — including the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the twin probes of the Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO), and several other satellites — are all studying the sun and its effects on Earth. Using technology that didn't exist 100 years ago, scientists are measuring solar winds, cosmic rays, irradiance and magnetic fields and finding that solar minimum is much more interesting than anyone expected.
Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be. The great uncertainty stems from one simple fact: No one fully understands the underlying physics of the sunspot cycle.
Pesnell believes sunspot counts should pick up again soon, "possibly by the end of the year," to be followed by a solar maximum of below-average intensity in 2012 or 2013.
But like other forecasters, he knows he could be wrong. Bull or bear? Stay tuned for updates.
"Since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high," notes Hathaway. "Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years. We're just not used to this kind of deep calm."
The sun has nothing to do with global warming...
-- Newsweek.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Told ya.
-dale
Reminds me of sci-fi novel Sunstorm by Arthur C Clarke & Stephen Baxter.novel's timeline is around 2037.Solar flares are getting common and massive one is expected soon which would disrupt all life cycle on earth. So humans decide to build a shield in space. And later it is hinted that all this (manipulation with solar activity) was done by an alien civilization to destroy humans
Reminds me of a science fiction movie called "An Inconvient Truth"
![]()
Gee, the Sun, of course.
Someone call the climate scientists and let them know; because they are obviously unaware of this and haven't factored it into their hypotheses.
Global warming theory specifically excludes solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming. That's why we take issue with it. To totally disregard the only actual source of heat as a factor in global temperature change does seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
By the way I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the patronising attitude at the door, you haven't during your time here demonstrated anything which would warrant you having it.
Actually if you read through the article you linked it says at the end:
{All emphasis mine}According to Shindell, the new study also confirms that changing levels of energy from the sun are not a major cause of global warming.
Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.
So what are you arguing about?
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides
I know.
That is why I linked to it.
To demonstrate that AGW theory excludes the sun as a driver in global warming.
Understand?
I then said that is why those of us who don't believe their theories are skeptical about how they can dismiss the only source of heat to the atmosphere (excluding geothermal) as being irrelevant to changes in global temperatures.
OK?
To 'exclude solar forcing as the agent for the last 50 years of warming' is not to 'totally disregard the only actual source of heat'.
I'm a skeptic myself, but to imply that climate scientists are 'ignoring the elephant in the room' and simply not factoring in the sun in their theory (as implied by yourself and dalem) is what I would consider ludicrous.
Hence my initial knee-jerk reply, for which I apologise for coming off as patronising.
Sorry. What I mean to say is that any role in solar forcing is dismissed by AGW proponents, despite it being just as good a suspect as Anthro CO2.
Here's some links to realclimate, Hansens website, outlining their reasoning across a number of blogs.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...c-cosmic-rays/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...limate-driver/
There's lots more.
I'm not a scientist but I am an engineer.
There has not been one case where the scientists can come up with a model that we can plug numbers in arbituary (ie, 1 year prediction, 2 year prediction, 5 year prediction ... up to 75 years prediction ... using the longest recorded data known) to match known occurances.
In other words, if we use the pro-AGW model, then WWII should see an increase in world wide temperature. There was a decrease.
The proposed science does not match the understood enginering.
Chimo
Aah! I found it.
Skip to 3:15
uh.... [YT] tags appear ineffective, just go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-WU0pV2AXE
Last edited by Ramo; 06 Apr 09, at 04:30.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Share this thread with friends: