Posted on 05/05/2015 7:54:35 AM PDT by rktman
The sun is almost completely blank. The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century. The sun's X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours. Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase. Solar cycle 24 began after an unusually deep solar minimum that lasted from 2007 to 2009 which included more spotless days on the sun compared to any minimum in almost a century.
(Excerpt) Read more at vencoreweather.com ...
That’s a neat bit of history! Thanks
That answer from NASA is incorrect. The visible light area of the spectrum is a wash, but not the UV light area of the spectrum.
What specifically are you referring to? What do you mean by "the visible light is a wash"?
From the NASA piece...
"However, there are more important indirect effects: sunspots are associated with what we call "active regions", with large magnetic structures containing very hot material (being held in place by the magnetism). This causes more ultraviolet (or UV) radiation (the rays that give you a suntan or sunburn), and extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV). These types of radiation have an impact on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (e.g. producing ozone). Since some of these products act as greenhouse gases, the number of sunspots (through association with active regions) may influence the climate in this way."
NASA is incorrect when it says the radiation output of the sun is changed very little over the course of the sunspot cycle. Their own studies prove that wrong, but they still cling to that statement like a drowning man in a sea of lies. UV light is radiation. So the radiation output and energy output of the sun varies significantly and dramatically during the solar cycle. However visible radiation varies little just due to the inherent nature of the sunspot area. Dark areas form next to bright areas. NASA has been wrong about this for decades.
“However, there are more important indirect effects: sunspots are associated with what we call “active regions”, with large magnetic structures containing very hot material (being held in place by the magnetism). This causes more ultraviolet (or UV) radiation (the rays that give you a suntan or sunburn), and extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV). These types of radiation have an impact on the chemistry of the upper atmosphere (e.g. producing ozone). Since some of these products act as greenhouse gases, the number of sunspots (through association with active regions) may influence the climate in this way.”
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/notsofaq.html#SUNSPOT_CLIMATE
But they say radiation does not. How can UV increase if radiation does not ? UV is radiation. They contradict themselves because they do not want to admit their holy grail, radiation does not increase, is horribly wrong. This is not not picking. It demonstrates how NASA missunderstood the solar cycle for decades and now wants to cover up their own incompetence and stupidity.
..
....
.-
-
.
code
“Does the number of sunspots have any effect on the climate here on Earth?
Sunspots are slightly cooler areas on the surface of the Sun, due to the intense magnetic fields, so they radiate a little less energy than the surroundings. However, there are usually nearby areas associated with the sunspots that are a little hotter (called falculae), and they more than compensate. The result is that there is a little bit more radiation coming from the Sun when it has more sunspots, but the effect is so small that it has very little impact on the weather and climate on Earth.”
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/notsofaq.html#SUNSPOT_CLIMATE
Actually, this is the only time and place I’ve seen someone at NASA even mention a possible relation between solar activity, cloud cover and climate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3286455/posts?page=20#20
I figured that was why it was buried so deeply on the site, in a section titled: Not-So-Frequently-Asked-Questions (actual title).
best bent wire
Its not the visible/UV radiation....
Its the Plasma Jet....lower in velocity (charged particles) that wipes away the high level clouds....causing cooling of the earth.
Try this for size:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/08/the-climate-grain-production-relationship-quantified/
There is now consensus that the Sun has now entered a quiet period. The first paper from the solar physics community predicting the current quiet period was Schatten and Tobiska’s 2003 paper “Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?”. To date, Solar Cycle 24 has shown similar maximum SSN amplitudes to that of Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum: 
The solar activity, cloud cover, earth climate theory I’m familiar with is the one that claims deep space cosmic rays (charged particles—not EM radiation (photons) ie, visible light, UV, infrared, etc) ionize fine particles in the atmosphere and ‘seed’ new clouds. But when solar activity is high, fewer cosmic rays make it to earth and there are less clouds. Less clouds = cooler temps
You wrote:
Try this for size...
Me again, in response to that:
As I posted several pieces in SUPPORT of a solar activity climate connection, I obviously am not attacking the idea. I only expressed my surprise that someone at NASA would have gone there. However, the solar RADIANCE info that you provided looks interesting too. Thanks for that.
Yes. That is where NASA got the whole sun solar cycle wrong. There are significant energy differences during the solar cycle. NASA just looked at the visible light emmisions and assumed it described all emissions. Just stupid apes being stupid. And because of that, they got the whole ozone hole causation wrong. We still have holes even after eliminating CFCs. The truth is the solar cycle is an energetic cycle. Significant amounts of greater energy are released by the sun during peak solar activity periods. It drives the climate and drives the ozone holes. We are now going into a massive cooling period and NASA now wants to kill millions from lack of food and exposure simply because it is run by leftist who refuse to admit they are wrong. Horribly wrong.
I’ve got peas, turnips, cabbage, lettuce and spinach coming up now and this weekend will be planting the rest of the garden plants I grew from seed .
If there’s a late May freeze I’m gonna be pissed!
Yes, realize what you are doing, but NASA is just covering up its stinky but here (ie-past mistakes).
Haha. I agree with you. I have said for years, that it is entirely possible that the path we are taking scientifically could be a rabbit hole that inhibits true progress to actually determine that the SOL is not the upper limit.
I would argue there is no path but many
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.