See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Source:
The Australian
URL Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a ... /0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Published: Jun 25, 2008
Author: Phil Chapman
Post Date: 2008-06-25 02:36:28 by RickyJ
Keywords: None
Views: 1066
Comments: 131
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. There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time. If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun. We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake. In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: FormerLurker (#0)
Hansen is a quack. Probably a crypto-Jew as well.
God is always good!
Gawd, I hope this is true. As for the millions or billions who may die, my view is that the earth has way too many humans already, many of whom (especially the neocons) have shown no sign that they are able to coexist peaceably with other humans of other civilizations to begin with. This is called Mother Nature striking back. As for the predominant global warming mindset, it will not change. Their collectiv(ist) response to this will be: "That's our story and we're sticking to it!"
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
Sounds like the obama-ites! Even the few republicans I still talk to aren't excited about voting for mcCain. But the obama-ites are certified, just as the global warming worshippers are!! ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
Nice job trying to pass off an editorial as a scientific article. How much does Exxon pay you for all your hard work here?
Uh huh. And he's hiding under your bed, waiting to stuff you with Matzah balls and eat you up... Get a f'ing life.
Now there's a ballsy prediction...
I don't know enough about Hansen or the global cooling theories to have a strong position. I know the weather where I live is ugly and severe as opposed to my past decades of experience. Do you have the education or background to evaluate Hansen's or other's theories with any critical analysis? You seem to have a mindset and those theories that conform to your already established belief system are true and anything outside your mindset is quackery. Where does the learning come in?
The black line is Hansen's prediction. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. Hate to ruin your fun, but it appears that your friend Phil Chapman is full of shiite. From The Australian Warming trend has not been reversed THE opinion piece by Phil Chapman ("Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh", Opinion, April 22) warns of an approaching ice age but contains a number of factual errors, misleading statements and incorrect conclusions. Chapman reports global average temperature cooled by 0.7C in 2007 and says: "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over." It is true that global data sets show a pronounced cooling from January2007 to January 2008 of slightly less than 0.7C. It is an error to state, as Chapman does, that this is unprecedented, as similar dramatic falls occurred from 1998 to 1999, and from 1973 to 1974. It should also be noted that the global average temperature has warmed substantially, by about 0.3C from January 2008 to March 2008. In addition, the annual average temperature for 2007 was within 0.1C of the average temperature in 2006 and 2005; no dramatic cooling there. So what caused this rapid cooling during 2007, and also from 1998 to 1999, and from 1973 to 1974? What was common to all those periods? In each case, the common factor was a rapid change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, from warm temperatures in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean to cold temperatures in the same region, which has a significant effect on global climate patterns and global average temperature. La Nina is associated with below-normal global average temperature, and because of its influence, 2008 is likely to be about 0.3C cooler than the average of the previous few years. Chapman did not consider La Nina as a cause of the cooling in 2007 and instead linked it to the minimum in the 11-year cycle in sunspot numbers: "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday." I don't know where these sunspot numbers came from but they are in error. The best source of data for present sunspot numbers is the World Data Centre for Solar Terrestrial Physics at the National Geophysical Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado. According to it, the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March. The minimum was in October2007. So, are variations in global average temperature directly related to sunspot numbers on a monthly, annual or decadal timescale? Certainly not on a monthly timescale and the effect, if any, on a year-to-year timescale is very small, as can be found by correlating the variations of global average temperature on monthly or annual timescales with the sunspot numbers. Any relationship between sunspot numbers and global average temperatures is much, much smaller than the clear relationship between inter- annual variations of equatorial Pacific Sea surface temperatures and global average temperatures, showing the effect of the El Nino-La Nina cycle. While those errors are bad enough, the main flaw in Chapman's opinion is trying to infer long-term climate trends from short-term (one year) variations of global temperature. It is well known (among climate scientists) that there are large inter-annual variations of global temperature caused by a number of factors, including El Nino, big volcanic eruptions, or just the chaotic variability of the climate system. It is not possible to make conclusions about long-term climate trends from inter-annual climate variations. Many lines of evidence support the conclusion reached last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", referring to changes over the past 100 years. Even when we consider only the global average temperature during La Nina episodes, such as the present cool period, we find that we are experiencing the warmest global temperature of any strong La Nina episode in the past 100 years, again showing clear long-term global warming. Most of the increase in global average temperature over the past 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This long-term increase in global average temperature will continue throughout the 21st century because of further increases in greenhouse gases. Yes, there will be year-to-year natural climate variations, with some colder years, but the long- term warming trend will continue. An ice age is definitely not going to occur in the 21st century. Instead, we will all need to make very large reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases if we are to minimise dangerous anthropogenic climate change. David Karoly is a professor in the University of Melbourne's school of earth sciences and a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March. So why are you lying? From ftp://ftp.ngd c.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/2008 Good post. Interesting read and rebuttal.
Isn't it interesting that the global warming critics have to resort to outright lying in order to make their case?
I find it interesting that you provide no source for your graphs. Being that you've lied about sunspot activity, I see no reason why I should place any faith in the validity of the pretty graphs you've posted here.
I find it interesting that a posse comes round to ridicule, spam and de- humanize any who wish to discuss the changes we see around us.
It goes with the territory, just as on any other forum.
So, oil companies put a few million into trying to stem the lemming like tide of climate change hysterical bullshit and it's an "evil corporate conspiracy" but the government pours about 103 more money into grants to people biased toward proving it because it'll facilitate their accreation of power and control and that's A-OK... Here's a hint, if you're going to utilize the logical fallacy that the mere supporters of a side in a debate disprove that sides assertions, then you have to accept the same for the opposition and in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Did you know that the article was based on a false premise, and that the author actually lied about the lack of sunspot activity? Do you find this sort of "info" fascinating and believable? As far as oil companies, of course they are siding with global warming critics, in fact they are the ones that PAY global warming critics in many cases. They side with global warming critics because they do not wish to lose the monopoly they have on the world's energy, which is exactly what would happen if alternative sources of energy were developed to a point where oil would become obsolete. Do you think they are taking sides here because they are just nice guys who actually care about you and your family?
No doubt there's the "Pro-globaloney" aspect to make money and restrict freedoms. That doesn't exclude the reality that things in our environment are fukked and the real reasons for it are a subject of interest to many.
The number of spots is not as important as the cycle they come from. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The 12-monthly best fit gives around the year 1797. The Dalton minimum reigned 1798-1823. It's anybody's guess what happens next. At least the Earth is already cooling. Sunspot number from Jan to May = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3 = 20.6 = 19.45(from 23) + 1.15 (from 24). Spotless days Jan to May = 20, 21, 16, 20, 23. One, I didn't lie about sun spot activity. I even posted current SOHO pictures. As for the graphs, they came from one or more of the members of David Wojick's Climate Skeptics forum. I don't remember who did them. The data is sourced however and that is all that is really necessary.
Here's a hint, if you're going to utilize the logical fallacy that the mere supporters of a side in a debate disprove that sides assertions, then you have to accept the same for the opposition and in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation... Heresy! As a side note, I wonder how many of these world socialist nut bags actually practice conservation in their home environments, with their means of transportation, etc.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
You posted an image of the Sun, so what? Are you saying that NOAA is lying about the number of sunspots this year? You quoted the author of this rather lame article in stating that there was only one sunspot in January, and one on each of the two Mondays prior to writing the article in April. There were in reality 12 on 1/4, 11 on 1/6 and 1/7, 10 on 1/5, and from 7 to 9 on eight other days that month. In February, there were 11 on 2/1, and 8 to 9 on six other days that month. In March, there were between 30 and 36 on six days of that month, 25 on 3/31, l9 on 3/24, and 7 to 9 for six other days that month. In the days of April prior to publishing the article, there were 16 on 4/1, 9 on 4/2 and 4/3, 7 on 4/4, 7 on 4/13 and 4/14, and 8 on 4/19, 4/22, and 4/23, where the article was published on 4/23. The only Monday that had sunspots prior to the 23rd of that month was on the 14th, but there was not just ONE, there were SEVEN. So this individual has to be extrordinarily stupid to think people can't look up this information to find out he's either lying or extremely ignorant of what he claims to be knowledgable about. Same goes for you farmfriend, as you are using sunspots as your argument here, and repeated the lie this individual presented.
I love how you cut and paste stuff with no reference where the info came from, and no understanding of what it means. As stated earlier, the earth is NOT cooling in regards to average temperature, any cooling is due to a cyclic effect known as La Nina, and sunspots have very little effect on the climate to begin with.
ARe you saying that the SOHO picture is false? Check the link. As for the sun spots, well you need to educate yourself rather than copy data you don't understand. The author was correct. There was only one spot in Jan from cycle 24. Maybe you should read my more indepth data. It's not just the over all number that is important but which cycle they come from and the intensity. Let's not forget the number of spotless days either, also in the data I posted. Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity SDF Number 176 Issued at 2200Z on 24 Jun 2008 Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 23/2100Z to 24/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares were observed during the past 24 hours. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low for the next three days (25-27 June). Geophysical Activity Summary 23/2100Z to 24/2100Z: The geomagnetic field was quiet. The greater than 2 MeV electron flux at geosynchronous orbit reached high levels during the past 24 hours. Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet to unsettled during the next three days (25-27 June). The increase in activity is forecast due to the expected arrival of a coronal hole high speed stream. I understand exactly what it means. Do you? As for the source, it was a personal email from Timo Niroma. A picture of the Sun on one particular day doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove that there wasn't any solar activity prior to that day, and it is simply a pretty picture which you posted in an attempt to fool people into thinking the article is correct.
Are you still trying to say that there were only three sunspots this year up through April 23rd?
University at Buffalo scientists working with ice cores have solved a mystery surrounding sunspots and their effect on climate that has puzzled scientists since they began studying the phenomenon. The research, published in a paper in the May 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, provides striking evidence that sunspots -- blemishes on the sun's surface indicating strong solar activity -- do influence global climate change, but that explosive volcanic eruptions on Earth can completely reverse those influences. It is the first time that volcanic eruptions have been identified as the atmospheric event responsible for the sudden and baffling reversals that scientists have seen in correlations between sunspots and climate. "Knowing the mechanisms behind past climate changes is critical to our understanding of possible future changes in climate, such as global warming, and for assessing which of these changes are due to human activities and which arise naturally," explained co-author Michael Stolz, doctoral candidate in the Department of Physics in UB's College of Arts and Sciences. According to the UB researchers, their work reveals two different mechanisms by which climate is affected by cosmic rays, charged particles that stream toward Earth and which are strongly influenced by solar activity. "For a long time people have tried to find out whether, for example, periods of maximum sunspots will influence the climate to behave in a certain way," said Michael Ram, Ph.D., professor of physics at UB and co-author on the paper. "Whenever scientists thought they had discovered something, say, they were seeing a positive correlation between temperature and sunspots, it would continue like that for several years and, all of a sudden, there would be a reversal and, instead, they would start to see a negative correlation," said Ram. "There seemed to be no consistent relationship between what the sun was doing and what the climate was doing," he said. To truly confirm any connection between sunspots and climate, a consistent correlation would have to be observed over a long period, covering many solar cycles, Ram explained. That's what he and his graduate students and co-authors have done with their study of ice cores, long cylinders of ancient ice from Greenland that serve as a frozen archive in that they record climate details from thousands of years ago. "This is the beauty of working with ice cores," said Ram. "They go back 100,000 years, so we can study how dust concentrations vary along the ice core, reflecting past atmospheric dust concentrations." Plain old dust, Ram added, holds the key in these experiments because it reflects how dry conditions were in a particular year. "Dust is a very sensitive parameter of climate," he explained. Drawing on climate data derived from ice cores obtained through the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2, (GISP2), the scientists used laser-light scattering techniques to determine the level of dust in the atmosphere for roughly the past 300 years, which is how far back sunspot data have been recorded. The scientists started out with the assumption that a low level of cosmic rays on Earth resulting from high sunspot activity would lead to less cloud cover and less rain, with resulting high dust levels. "This was true for the first three or four solar cycles we studied, from about 1930 to 1962, but then the correlation reversed itself, demonstrating that the mechanism couldn't be what we thought," said Ram. It turned out that during those 32 years of positive sun/dust correlation, there was relatively little explosive volcanic activity worldwide. The researchers found that the same conditions existed between 1860 and 1882. Each of these relatively "quiet" periods came to an end with increased volcanic activity. For example, in 1883, the Indonesian volcano Krakatau erupted in one of the deadliest volcanic disasters, killing 36,000 people. At exactly the same time, the data started to exhibit low dust concentration whenever there was high sunspot activity, a correlation that violated the scientists' original assumptions. "By carefully studying the timing of other volcanic eruptions, we found that they coincided with all of the correlation reversals between sunspots and climate," said Ram. A chart in the paper shows how six major volcanic eruptions between 1800 and 1962 occurred during precisely the same years when there were reversals in the correlation between sunspot activity and climate. That revelation provided a further insight into how sunspots affect climate. "All energy comes from the sun, but the change in visible radiation from the sun during any one solar cycle is less than one half of a percent," explained Stolz. "Scientists have said it's impossible that so small a change could influence any signal in the climate. But here we have evidence to show that it's not just radiation energy from the sun that is affecting climate, it's the solar-modulated cosmic rays that have a strong influence because of their impact on cloud cover." With fewer clouds, and therefore less rain, the scientists reasoned, maximum sunspots should cause levels of atmospheric dust to rise. "That is true sometimes," said John Donarummo, Jr., UB doctoral candidate in the UB Department of Geology and a co-author on the paper. But, the researchers discovered, during periods of high volcanic activity, high sunspot activity also results in high levels of atmospheric dust. According to Donarummo, it long has been known that volcanoes add more dust and more sulfates to the atmosphere. The UB team discovered that these additional sulfates cause cosmic rays to have a more pronounced effect on Earth by spurring the formation of small droplets in the atmosphere that, in turn, cause the formation of a type of cloud that does not produce rain. "During these times of high volcanic activity, the sunspot/climate correlation reverses and dust levels rise, even in the absence of high sunspots," explained Stolz. The work was funded in part by the National Science Foundation.- By Ellen Goldbaum I highly doubt it. BTW, do you believe everything you read on the Internet, or do you only believe that which agrees with your worldview?
Didn't read the data I posted did you? Let me repost the short version for you. Spotless days Jan to May = 20, 21, 16, 20, 23. Then there is this important tidbit: As I said, any relationship between climate and sunspot activity is minimal. I didn't say non-existent, I said minimal.
I guess you don't count very well do you. That, or you are simply ignoring the actual sunspot counts provided by NOAA. Which is it?
Cycle 23 spots show up in the Southern Hemisphere of the sun. Cycle 24 spots show up in the North. cycle 24 is already a year late. Cycle 23 was responsible for the peak warming in 98. The more number of spotless days, also in the information I posted, the cooler the Earth. The Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum were both caused by decreses in sun spot activity. The Landscheidt minimum is expected to be similar to the Dalton minimum.
Your numbers seem to match mine so what is the problem? Other than you failed to show which cycle they came from or the significance of the number of spotless days.
According to Donarummo, it long has been known that volcanoes add more dust and more sulfates to the atmosphere. The UB team discovered that these additional sulfates cause cosmic rays to have a more pronounced effect on Earth by spurring the formation of small droplets in the atmosphere that, in turn, cause the formation of a type of cloud that does not produce rain. So are you trying to say that sunspots cause volcanic activity? What exactly ARE you trying to say here? Should high sunspot activity make the earth warmer or cooler?
You quoted the author of this article stating that there were only three this year up to the 23rd of April. Do you retract that quote and agree that the author is lying?
I'm not saying anything, just countering your unsourced unsupported notion that "any relationship between climate and sunspot activity is minimal." Do you want to source that? Support it in any way?
Comments (41 - 131) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: RickyJ (#0)
#3. To: Sam Houston (#2)
As for the predominant global warming mindset, it will not change. Their collectiv(ist) response to this will be: "That's our story and we're sticking to it!"
#4. To: RickyJ (#0)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#5. To: RickyJ (#1)
Hansen is a quack. Probably a crypto-Jew as well.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#6. To: RickyJ (#0)
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#7. To: RickyJ (#1)
Hansen is a quack.
#8. To: angle (#7)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#9. To: All (#8)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#10. To: All (#9)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#11. To: RickyJ (#0)
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#12. To: RickyJ, farmfriend, Rotara, Sam Houston, who knows what evil, angle (#0)
David Karoly | April 29, 2008
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#13. To: farmfriend, RickyJ, angle (#11)
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
DAILY SUNSPOT NUMBERS 2008
===============================================================================
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Day
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 11 0 16 0 2008 01
7 9 0 9 0 2008 02
7 9 7 9 0 2008 03
12 8 0 7 7 2008 04
10 0 0 0 8 2008 05
11 0 8 0 0 2008 06
11 0 0 0 0 2008 07
9 0 0 0 0 2008 08
0 0 0 0 0 2008 09
8 0 9 0 0 2008 10
8 0 0 0 0 2008 11
0 0 0 0 0 2008 12
0 0 0 7 8 2008 13
0 0 0 7 0 2008 14
0 0 7 0 9 2008 15
0 0 7 0 14 2008 16
0 0 7 0 12 2008 17
0 0 0 0 15 2008 18
0 0 0 8 11 2008 19
0 0 0 0 7 2008 20
0 0 0 0 0 2008 21
0 0 0 8 0 2008 22
0 0 0 8 0 2008 23
0 0 19 7 0 2008 24
0 8 32 0 0 2008 25
0 8 36 0 0 2008 26
0 8 35 0 0 2008 27
0 0 34 0 0 2008 28
0 0 30 0 0 2008 29
8 31 0 0 2008 30
8 25 0 2008 31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.4 2.1 9.3 2.9 2.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values are preliminary after Dec 07.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#14. To: FormerLurker (#12)
#15. To: angle (#14)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#16. To: farmfriend (#8)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#17. To: FormerLurker (#15)
#18. To: angle (#17)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#19. To: FormerLurker (#4)
How much does Exxon pay you for all your hard work here?
#20. To: Axenolith (#19)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#21. To: Axenolith (#19)
in this case the Pro-globaloney side has a lot more vested interests backing it and to boot, they don't merely want to make money, they want to take your freedom, control you, and diminish the sovereignity of our nation...
#22. To: FormerLurker (#13)
the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4, followed by 2.1 in February and 9.3 in March.
The situation with sunspots from July 2007 to May 2008. The cycle 23 that began already in 1996 still reigns superior.
From cycle 24 there are three tiny signatures: one in January (1 day), one in April (2 days)and one in May (2 days).
In 2008 there has been 14 groups from cycle 23 lasting together 80 days, and 3 groups from cycle 24 lasting together 5 days.
From July 2007 to December 2007
month
year
spotless days
days with below 10 Wolfs (1 sunspot group)
days with below 20 Wolfs (most probable 2 groups)
days between 20-30 Wolfs (3-4 groups)
07 2007 08 10 09 04
08 2007 08 22 01
09 2007 22 07 01
10 2007 28 02 01
11 2007 24 04 02
12 2007 12 05 05 08
-------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2008
spotless days 20
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 11 days
one spot group from cycle 24 (northern hemisphere) on 1 day (4.1.)
4.1. there were two spot groups at the same time, one from cycle 23
and one from cycle 24
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2008
spotless days 21
one spot group from cycle 23 (southern hemisphere) on 8 days
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 2.1 (all from cycle 23)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2008 (some ending in April)
spotless days 16
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (5.-6.3.) max size 30 per mil
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (10.3.) max size 90 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 3 days (15.-17.3.) max size 20 pm
a triplet (3 at the same time 25.3.-31.3.):
first sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 12 days (23.3.-31.3.)
second sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (24.3.-2.4.)
third sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 13 days (25.3.-3.4.)
max size together 520 pm (26.3.), above 100 from 24.3.-2.4.
none spots from cycle 24
Sunspot number 9.3 (all from cycle 23)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2008
spotless days 20
remnants from sp-gr from cycle 23 1.4.-3.4. (see March)
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 2 days (19.-20.4.) max size 20 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (NH) on 3 days (22.-24.4.) max size 40 pm
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (NH) on 2 days (14.-15.4.) max size 10 pm
this is number 2 cycle 24 spot 102 days after the first in January
Sunspot number 2.9 (2.45 from cycle 23 and 0.45 from cycle 24)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2008
spotless days 23
three simultaneous sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (16.5) ms 45
two sim. sp-groups from cycle 23 (SH) on 4 days (17.5.-20.5.) ms 80
one sp-gr from cycle 23 (SH) on 1 day (26.5.) ms 10
one sp-gr from cycle 24 (SH!) on 2 days (4.-5.5.) ms 20
sunspot number 2.9 (2.5 from cycle 23 and 0.4 from cycle 24)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#23. To: FormerLurker (#16)
I find it interesting that you provide no source for your graphs. Being that you've lied about sunspot activity, I see no reason why I should place any faith in the validity of the pretty graphs you've posted here.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#24. To: Axenolith (#19)
So, oil companies put a few million into trying to stem the lemming like tide of climate change hysterical bullshit and it's an "evil corporate conspiracy" but the government pours about 103 more money into grants to people biased toward proving it because it'll facilitate their accreation of power and control and that's A-OK...
#25. To: farmfriend (#23)
One, I didn't lie about sun spot activity. I even posted current SOHO pictures.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#26. To: farmfriend (#22)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#27. To: FormerLurker (#25)
Are you saying that NOAA is lying about the number of sunspots this year?
From the Space Weather Prediction Center Updated 2008 Jun 24 2203 UTC
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#28. To: FormerLurker (#26)
I love how you cut and paste stuff with no reference where the info came from, and no understanding of what it means.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#29. To: farmfriend (#27)
ARe you saying that the SOHO picture is false?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#30. To: farmfriend (#28)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#31. To: FormerLurker (#26)
(Edited)
and sunspots have very little effect on the climate to begin with.
Of Sunspots, Volcanic Eruptions And Climate Change
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#32. To: farmfriend (#28)
I understand exactly what it means.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)
Are you still trying to say that there were only three sunspots this year up through April 23rd?
Sunspot number from Jan to May = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3 = 20.6 = 19.45 (from 23) + 1.15 (from 24).
The 12-monthly best fit gives around the year 1797. The Dalton minimum reigned 1798-1823. It's anybody's guess what happens next. At least the Earth is already cooling.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#34. To: farmfriend (#31)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#35. To: farmfriend (#33)
Sunspot number from Jan to May = 3, 2, 9, 3, 3
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#36. To: FormerLurker (#32)
I highly doubt it. BTW
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#37. To: FormerLurker (#35)
I guess you don't count very well do you. That, or you are simply ignoring the actual sunspot counts provided by NOAA. Which is it?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#38. To: farmfriend (#31)
But, the researchers discovered, during periods of high volcanic activity, high sunspot activity also results in high levels of atmospheric dust.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#39. To: farmfriend (#37)
Your numbers seem to match mine so what is the problem?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: FormerLurker (#38)
So are you trying to say that sunspots cause volcanic activity? What exactly ARE you trying to say here? Should high sunspot activity make the earth warmer or cooler?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
.
.
.