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: 1375
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
Comments (1-67) not displayed.
.
.
.
#68. To: FormerLurker (#66)
the 3.4 is averages as you clearly pointed out. His numbers are almost identical to the averages you posted earlier.
Watch out, thems will suck the life right out of you. ;-)
"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
He said there was ONE sunspot in January. That is a LIE. There were 28 separate sunspots that month. He said there was ONE sunspot TWO Mondays before he wrote the article, and another ONE the Monday after that, where there were NO days this year where there was only ONE sunspot, never mind only one on a Monday. And YOU are an even bigger liar, as cycle 24 started January 4th, where there were TWELVE sunspots that day, and 129 separate sunspots just up to 4/23/08. I've been trying to let you off the hook on that, but it's quite clear that you had no intention of correcting yourself and admitting you were wrong.
Your averages 3.4, 2.1, 9.3, 2.9, 2.9 His averages 3.4, 2.1, 9.3, 2.9, 2.9 taken directly from the data I posted.
No, he said there was one spot from cycle 24. How many times do I have to repeat that. Here is the direct quote again: 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. Those figures are nonsense, especially the 0.3 from cycle 24. He AND you are presenting averaged numbers as if they were ACTUAL counts, and then trying to say there were 0.3 sunspots this entire year. Do you really expect people to be that stupid?
How many from cycle 23 and how many from cycle 24?
Do you live in some sort of alternate universe where 20 = 3, and 3 equals 1? Again, cycle 24 STARTED on January 4th of this year, and has JUST began. Thus far, from what I can see there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) thus far this cycle. So you are here trying to say that 160 equals 1?
Are you pals with Bill Clinton or something? Are you going to try to change the meaning of the word EQUALS?
No, he represented the same averages you did only English is not his primary language.
LOL It's like remedial pre-school class and you got stuck teaching!
"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
It didn't happen. A) The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. B) A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. C) Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. A) LIE B) LIE C) LIE Are you going to try to say that January doesn't exist, or that he meant next year, or something equally deranged?
I bet she was your teacher, right?
Are you ready to admit that there were 160 sunspots so far this cycle and that you were lying about there only being ONE?
LOL! cycle 23 spots and cycle 24 spots happen at the same time. Hemisphere is important. That's why Timo gives data each month for cycle 23 and cycle 24. It's not just a matter of numbers since a certain date. There well may have been 160 spots since Jan 4, I didn't count them, but most of those are cycle 23 spots. Look at Timo's data again. Would this help. He has the same 3.4 average spots you have then breaks it down by cycle. I'll add % to make it clear. There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
Correct. Sort of. Cycle 24 spots have made an appearance but the cycle is still considered delayed since the spots are few in number and weak plus we are still getting cycle 23 spots. Incorrect. Most of those were from last cycle, cycle 23.
No. Shall I go back and pull the data? Go back and look at Timo's data, taken from NOAA, he breaks it down by cycle as it should be. Most months had cycle 23 spots not cycle 24. There is a distinction that is important.
Do you or do you not admit that on the day this cycle started, 1/4/2008, there were 12 active sunspots? Do you or do you not admit that since there were TWELVE that day, then your statement, "No, he said there was one spot from cycle 24" would indicate the man is either an idiot or a liar?
Are you for real? The cycle started 1/4/2008, and by summing the highest value for unique groups of spots up through the end of May, the sum is 160. Hell, you still can't admit that 12 doesn't equal 1.
January 2008 You do realize that we are IN CYCLE 24 right NOW, don't you?
Do you or do you NOT admit that 12 DOES NOT EQUAL 1?
The start of cycle 24 doesn't mean that all subsequent spots are cycle 24.
And still getting cycle 23 spots.
I think you're just trying to see if I'll lose my temper with how dumb you are acting. The cycle began 1/4/2008. A sunspot cycle BEGINS with the MINIMUM point in the cycle, where there is EXPECTED to be very little sunspot activity. Even YOU should have seen that from the graph you posted.. Hell, here's another set of graphs which go back to 1760. So sunspot activity will increase over the next several years, but what we are experiencing NOW is perfectly normal and expected.
Do you know the difference between an apple and an orange? I really don't think you do.
Do you admit that the beginning of a cycle indicates a point where there is a lull in sunspot activity?
Do you think it really matters if a spot is cycle 23 or 24 in regards to the number of spots at this point? Do you even know what would make a spot cycle 23 or 24?
"... the daily "Boulder Sunspot Number," is computed by the NOAA Space Environment Center using a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848: R=k (10g+s), where R is the sunspot number; g is the number of sunspot groups on the solar disk; s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups; and k is a variable scaling factor (usually <1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.)." .............. "As a rule of thumb, if you divide either of the official sunspot numbers by 15, you'll get the approximate number of individual sunspots visible on the solar disk if you look at the Sun by projecting its image on a paper plate with a small telescope."
Of course that doesn't mean the result is the actual number of sunspots, rather it simply means that'd be the approximate number you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope.
How many of those were cycle 24 spots? I agree though that the article of the thread is a poor one.
Keisha Brown, 21, from Chicago, whose mother has a nightgown with a picture of Obama on it, said, “Everything will be different now.”
It does if the quote is specifically talking about cycle 24 and you turn it into all spots. It also matters when you are trying to project if cycle 24 is going to be active or not. So far cycle 24 has not been strong enough to push out cycle 23. I agree though that the article of the thread is a poor one. Only one from what I gather, yet the way the article is worded, most people would think that was the ONLY sunspot in January, period.
The "sunspot number" for the day is about the number of spots you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope, multiplied by 15.
For most people reading the article, one spot is one spot. He embellished the importance of the matter, whereas it's NORMAL and EXPECTED for there to be a lull in sunspot activity at the beginning of a new cycle. He neglected not only that, but he failed to mention that there was still sunspot activity taking place from the previous cycle, again, as expected.
Right, but scientists don't use paper plates, they use various observatories to measure the actual number.
FWIW, when most people ralk about a sunspot they are talking about a spot visible by a method like the "paper plate" method. That the image is on a "paper plate" isn't that important, it's the size of the image, assuming it's sharp. Not sure how big the image would be on the "paper plate" to come up with the "divide R by 15 to get the number of spots seen" situation, but I doubt it would cover the entire plate if a small scope is used. Using a paper plate and small scope is probably not much different from counting the spots on the SOHO website's smaller sunspot images. If you look at the formula for "R", though, "s" is apparently the actual number of spots counted no matter how big the scope is, and R is close to 10g + s, where g is the number of groups. If you had two groups with five spots in each, "R" would apparently be 30, if the explanation given with the formula is correct, with s = 10, g = 2 (and k close to 1). The other number in the formula, "k", the scaling constant, apparently would become larger the smaller the scope. Two groups of five spots seen as two spots on a small scope would apparently also give R = 30, using the divide by 15 method, R/15= 2. The factor "k" is apparently intended to norm all observations on different instruments to a standard resolution which is basically the same as a standard magnification. So, it seems the standard image is apparently about 15 times sharper than a small-scope/paper plate image and shows small-scope spots to be groups of about 5 spots. Five is probably representative of an average of even numbers 4 and 6 here, as pairs of poles. That's my guess, anyway. A definite fractal flavor to it, too. I do not follow this old-cycle/new-cycle stuff, and it apparently has nothing to do with "sunspot number" R. It looks like nonsense to me.
If you search "fractal sunspot" you'll see things like "This paper analyzes the model for the evolution of sunspots considered as fractal clusters of magnetic flux tubes." If you see one obvious spot at a glance from a simple pinhole, then it's probably two with a small scope inserted instead, then at the standard image gain used for R it is more likely seen as two sets of four or six spots, which for each set represent two or three obvious pairs of flux-tube exits and entries. I think.
Do you find this sort of "info" fascinating and believable? I don't even give a shit about the article. My point was that you seem to put a shitload of faith in the good intentions of a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians who have MORE than the vested interests in screwing us than the oil companies ever have, and have REPEATEDLY produced on those screwings. So the sunspot article was off, or had some inaccuracies. Your side has fruitloops that claim a fraction of a degree of warming is increasing tectonic activity. The whole discussion is bullshit. The planet's going to be FINE. It's survived 200,000,000 to 500,000,000+ Mt IMPACT events for Gods sake and still harbored life and kept rotating around the sun. CO2 levels have been nearly 2000 ppm in the past and the planet was a RIOT of life and diversity then. If the stupid NGO-Treehugger-Gobalist crowd had a pound of brains among themselves they'd ROOT for global warming to cull humans and increase diversity. You know why they don't? Because the point is SCREW THE AMERICANS. That's why all the treaty bullshit exempts 3rd worlders, and probably still China and India and then turns around and prohibits us from offsetting with programs like reforestation. You don't say??? Did you freakin' read what I wrote??? The "I believe the sky is falling and the Earth is crying and we need more patchouli oil and compact flourescents" crowd gets paid about 1000X more by governments, foundations and university grants to spout their crap, and while it's no where NEAR settled as to what or how much effect we have and how bad or good it will be, it's become a damn multibillion dollar lobbying and business machine on that side. Oil and liquid/solid hydrocarbons will NOT BECOME OBSOLETE FOREVER OR AT LEAST UNTIL WE EVOLVE INTO THE NEW AGES "PEACEFUL LIGHT BEINGS" OR JESUS RETURNS AND PUTS HIS FOOT DOWN! It just ain't happening. Aside from the fact that practically EVERY piece of modern technology you ride in, eat off of, play with, shit on, Ad Infinitum... has a hydrocarbon component, liquid hydrocarbons provide the MOST UNIT ENERGY PER VOLUME of any reasonably cheap motive and power producing fuel. Until you can generate or store on a large scale the energy equivalent of a tankfull of hydrocarbons for less than it would cost to actually synthesize liquid hydrocarbons from something like trash and water you're going to use hydrocarbons. I don't give a shit what they think of my family as long as they produce portable liquid fuel available on demand... As for the CO2 concentrations as they stand having anything to do with what we actually are observing on the macro scale, there isn't any. None of todays weather phenominon can be connected to a fraction of a degree change in temperature up or down. The WHOLE hysteria about it is NOTHING BUT GOVERNMENT AND VESTED INTEREST BULLSHIT designed to get us to cough up freedom, independance and sovereignity...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Comments (108 - 131) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYou refuse to acknowledge 12 is greater than 3.4,
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#69. To: farmfriend (#62)
Get back to me when you know the difference between cycle 23 and 24.
#70. To: farmfriend (#65)
Three spots from cycle 24.
"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
#71. To: FormerLurker (#66)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#72. To: FormerLurker (#70)
He said there was ONE sunspot in January.
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."
#73. To: farmfriend (#63)
Sunspot number 3.4 (3.1 from cycle 23 0.3 from cycle 24)
"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
#74. To: FormerLurker (#70)
He said there was ONE sunspot in January. That is a LIE. There were 28 separate sunspots that month.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#75. To: farmfriend (#72)
No, he said there was one spot from cycle 24.
"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
#76. To: farmfriend (#74)
"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
#77. To: FormerLurker (#73)
He AND you are presenting averaged numbers as if they were ACTUAL counts,
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#78. To: farmfriend (#74)
#79. To: farmfriend (#72)
The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
"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
#80. To: Rotara (#78)
It's like remedial pre-school class and you got stuck teaching!
"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
#81. To: farmfriend (#77)
No, he represented the same averages you did only English is not his primary language.
"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
#82. To: FormerLurker (#75)
(Edited)
Again, cycle 24 STARTED on January 4th of this year, and has JUST began. Thus far, from what I can see there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) thus far this cycle.
Sunspot number 3.4% (3.1% from cycle 23 - 0.3% from cycle 24)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#83. To: FormerLurker (#81)
Are you ready to admit that there were 160 sunspots so far this cycle and that you were lying about there only being ONE?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#84. To: FormerLurker (#75)
Again, cycle 24 STARTED on January 4th of this year, and has JUST began.
Thus far, from what I can see there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY (160) thus far this cycle.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#85. To: All (#83)
There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#86. To: farmfriend (#83)
There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
"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
#87. To: farmfriend (#84)
Incorrect. Most of those were from last cycle, cycle 23.
"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
#88. To: All (#83)
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."
#89. To: farmfriend (#83)
There hasn't been 160 spots "this cycle".
"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
#90. To: farmfriend (#88)
"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
#91. To: FormerLurker (#87)
Are you for real? The cycle started 1/4/2008, and by summing the highest value for unique groups of spots up through the end of May, the sum is 160.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#92. To: FormerLurker (#89)
You do realize that we are IN CYCLE 24 right NOW, don't you?
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#93. To: farmfriend (#84)
Correct. Sort of. Cycle 24 spots have made an appearance but the cycle is still considered delayed since the spots are few in number and weak plus we are still getting cycle 23 spots.
"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
#94. To: farmfriend (#91)
The start of cycle 24 doesn't mean that all subsequent spots are cycle 24.
"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
#95. To: farmfriend (#84)
"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
#96. To: farmfriend (#92)
And still getting cycle 23 spots.
"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
#97. To: FormerLurker (#13)
#98. To: nobody (#97)
"As a rule of thumb, if you divide either of the official sunspot numbers by 15, you'll get the approximate number of individual sunspots visible on the solar disk if you look at the Sun by projecting its image on a paper plate with a small telescope."
"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
#99. To: FormerLurker, angle, RickyJ (#13)
(Edited)
the average number of sunspots a day last January was 3.4
#100. To: FormerLurker (#96)
Do you think it really matters if a spot is cycle 23 or 24 in regards to the number of spots at this point?
Do you even know what would make a spot cycle 23 or 24?
Yes, polarity and hemisphere. That's why Timo lists hemisphere in his data. It is important.
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#101. To: Tauzero (#99)
How many of those were cycle 24 spots?
"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
#102. To: FormerLurker (#98)
(Edited)
Of course that doesn't mean the result is the actual number of sunspots, rather it simply means that'd be the approximate number you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope.
#103. To: farmfriend (#100)
It does if the quote is specifically talking about cycle 24 and you turn it into all spots.
"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
#104. To: nobody (#102)
The "sunspot number" is about the number of spots you'd see on a paper plate with a small telescope, multiplied by 15.
"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
#105. To: FormerLurker (#104)
(Edited)
#106. To: FormerLurker (#104)
(Edited)
#107. To: FormerLurker (#20)
Did you know that the article was based on a false premise, and that the author actually lied about the lack of sunspot activity?
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?
.
.
.