Sunspot Numbers - Solar Max - Solar Min

YuccaFlatsRanch · #1 08/30/12, 03:23 PM

Was just reading in my latest copy of Monitoring Times (shortwave and amateur radio mag) about the current Solar Maximum which follows along after the longest solar minimum in this century. While the last solar minimum wasn't the deepest minimum nor the longest ever (Maunder Minimum) the current Solar Maximum is turning out to be a dud, being downgraded from an expect 115 sunspot average to now 55 on average. The author cites two major Solar researchers for the Nat'l Science Foundation as predicting that sometime during the period 2015-2020 the solar sunspot average should/could reach ZERO. All other times when this has happened - the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum have been time of significant global cooling - the Maunder Minimum being known as the "Little Ice Age". Research shows that a significant Minimum occurs once every 200 or so years - we are due!!!

With today's world population, a cooling period anything close to either of the Minimum's would be devastating to the worlds ability to grow food. If I were considering relocation to the northern states or to a place at high altitude, I might want to reconsider my choice. The scientists who are talking about the coming Solar Minimum are talking in terms of length of 25 - 100 years.

The paper written by the the scientists is "Sunspots May Vanish By 2015" by William Livingston and Matthew Penn of Kitt Peak Solar Observatory.

Darren · #2 08/30/12, 04:08 PM

That is what I call a red flagged, klaxon sounding trigger for those that understand. The EPA needs to order more CO2 emissions.

I'm glad I buried my water lines as deep as I did.

roberte · #3 08/30/12, 04:27 PM

Take a look at Fig. SMP 2 at Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Solar forcing is .12 CO2 is 1.66 Total net human influence is 1.6

"The values reflect the total forcing relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). The forcings for all greenhouse gas increases, which are the best understood of those due to human activities, are positive because each gas absorbs outgoing infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Among the greenhouse gases, CO2 increases have caused the largest forcing over this period."
FAQ 2.1 - AR4 WGI Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing

Previously, we didn't have the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere and solar was strong enough to have an effect. But the increasing level of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the 1750s overpowers virtually any effect from sunspot activity.

Ozarks Tom · #4 08/30/12, 04:34 PM

Bull.

Bearfootfarm · #5 08/30/12, 05:08 PM

Quote:

But the increasing level of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases since the 1750s overpowers virtually any effect from sunspot activity.

Maybe, maybe not.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and we still had Ice Ages.

silverseeds · #6 08/30/12, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberte

Solar forcing is .12

Only according to the IPCC, there is a reason they have but one astrophysicist.

Look up "judithgate" The IPCC contradicts almost the entire field on this point.

roberte · #7 08/30/12, 05:25 PM

The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History A23A

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

Maybe, maybe not.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past, and we still had Ice Ages.

roberte · #8 08/30/12, 05:33 PM

A list of "almost the entire field" is forthcoming, right?

Or, how about a number that your "almost the entire field" agrees on. You know, one that "contradicts" the data in AR4

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

Only according to the IPCC, there is a reason they have but one astrophysicist.

Look up "judithgate" The IPCC contradicts almost the entire field on this point.

silverseeds · #9 08/30/12, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberte

A list of "almost the entire field" is forthcoming, right?

You could also list a second solar expert who works with the IPCC.

Quote:

Or, how about a number that your "almost the entire field" agrees on. You know, one that "contradicts" the data in AR4

The study the OP mentions is one source. Actually now that I think about it, this single study has double the solar scientists the IPCC uses. (two were listed) Study the field yourself, there has been agreement (within a range well over the IPCC stance) for a long time, it wasnt until the IPCC and their lack of experts in the field that any major source disagreed. Its pretty simple, if the sun causes the level of change the study the OP mentions then the IPCC and their single solar expert were wrong. All of our data suggests the sun can cause this level of change. We will know in a few years, because if the sun stays on its current course it should start getting cool pretty soon.

roberte · #10 08/30/12, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

All of our data suggests the sun can cause this level of change.

Source?

Forerunner · #11 08/30/12, 06:07 PM

I don't get it.....is the sun going to fail us, or is CO2 going to save us ?

silverseeds · #12 08/30/12, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberte

Source?

I played this game with you on another forum. After a dozen sources showing the same thing, you kept ignoring anything posted and assuring me the IPCC and their single expert got it right. I had to repost the same sources many many times as well to get them acknowledged. Not really a game I want to play. Some peoples minds are made up no matter what the data shows. Its not really a game I feel like playing.

Anyone who cares enough to look into it, with any depth will see it clearly. I noticed you didnt try to prove the IPCC used more then one solar expert. the single study mentioned by the OP doubles this number.

YuccaFlatsRanch · #13 08/30/12, 06:13 PM

You know what I like best about climatolgists and meteorologists - they haven't a clue what is happening until it happens. It's why even when weather is happening, they have us radio operators who comprise something called SKYWARN to radio in and tell them whether or not what their computers say is really happening. Too frequently it is not.

Face it Roberte - Global warming "experts" are the most dishonest of all pseudo-scientists. With them, they make a model and then change to the data to make it fit.

roberte · #14 08/30/12, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silverseeds

The study the OP mentions is one source.

Actually it doesn't. Its focus is on the mechanics, the physics, of sunspot development and cycling. Anthony Watts has the 2005 version of the article on his website ( http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre..._sunspots2.pdf )

It only mentions the Maunder Minimum in one paragraph. And only mentions the LIA / Maunder Minimum connection with no mention of possible effects their prediction would have on the current effects from Anthropogenic Climate Change.

YuccaFlatsRanch · #15 08/30/12, 06:20 PM

"is the sun going to fail us, or is CO2 going to save us"

The answer is YES, the sun and the earth are going to do exactly as they please, regardless of what man does. Man affecting the earth's climate is like trying to change the salinity of the ocean one salt shaker at a time. If as when the last time the sun decided to be quiet, it got cold. Did then, will do it again next time the sun goes quiet.

However Roberte, I suggest strongly that you move as far North as you possible can - Northern Canada will do. That way when the world gets too hot, your climate will be perfect, paradise. OR you will be frozen into a solid block of ice - all the same to me. As for me - South Central Texas is fine - you can see which way I am betting.

I will bet you money, that if I knew where Roberte lives in Wa State, I can tell you exactly who he voted for last time, and I'll bet who he will vote for this time and probably the two times Bush ran. Wanna make that bet??? My bet is he lives somewhere close to Olympia, Wa or on the Oregon Border - maybe on the coast of SW Washington, with all the other environmental wackos.

roberte · #16 08/30/12, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YuccaFlatsRanch

Man affecting the earth's climate is like trying to change the salinity of the ocean one salt shaker at a time

Let us know when you have the data that supports that claim.

Until then, I'll take the past 100 plus years of science as evidence.

YuccaFlatsRanch · #17 08/30/12, 06:48 PM

"100 plus years of science" Global warmers gave up the cloak of science several years ago when they admitted changing the facts/data. Please don't insult my intelligence. Both of my degrees are in the sciences and I clearly understand fact from fiction.

YuccaFlatsRanch · #18 08/30/12, 06:50 PM

Hey Mods - is there somewhere I can continue this posting where Roberte can't find the link??? This posting started out as a posting on the sun quieting down and has been hijacked into another Global Worming Diatribe.

arabian knight · #19 08/30/12, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YuccaFlatsRanch

"is the sun going to fail us, or is CO2 going to save us"

The answer is YES, the sun and the earth are going to do exactly as they please, regardless of what man does. Man affecting the earth's climate is like trying to change the salinity of the ocean one salt shaker at a time.

a sop true. And WHAT was this. CO2 levels are now LOWER then they have been for the 20 Years. Hmmm And man is still burning fossil fuel at a faster rate now then ever, especially in Other countries that are just now coming into their own. LOL
This is so funny reading about the GW tree huggers that have been prove wrong time and again and even been caught putting in False Data so they could get the results they wanted. LOL
If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.
Man has little power over what Mother Earth has done, is doing, and will do in the future.
The earth is way more dynamic then some think. LOL Gee even that GW so called guru of the GW crowd. even admitted he Falsified that highly publicized Hockey Stick Graph. What a nut case.

roberte · #20 08/30/12, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YuccaFlatsRanch

they admitted changing the facts/data.

Oh, do tell us......

Who

What

Where

When

How