Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/10/2009 12:58:07 PM PDT by saganite
Boston (MA) - Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes 2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the same.
As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008 there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in 2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest sunspots years seen since 1911.
Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through 1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the Little Ice Age.
He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years. There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).
Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715 during the Little Ice Age).
So far in 2009, the sun has had no sunspots for 88 out of the 99 days so far this year. Dr. Soon calls what we are seeing "the first deep solar minimum of the space age", and "In fact, this is the quietest [fewest sunspots] Sun we have had in almost a century".
In a separate video interview, he explains some possible scenarios which align with global temperature changes relating to sunspot activity, as the increased or decreased energy output from the sun affects the Earth's climate.
He explains in that interview:
"When the energy input to the Earth from the sun is lower, you can easily imagine then what the first effect would be -- heating less of the ocean's surface. This promotes less evaporation of water vapor from the ocean, reducing what we all know to be the major green house gas, water vapor, in contrast to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Then, you would say that if the sun provides less energy to warm the ocean's surface, and there is less of this water vapor and less of the water vapor greenhouse effect, then the Earth begins warming less so than you would normally have during the normal sunspot activity maximum when the sun gives off more light-energy to the planetary system.
"The second way to think about this is if the sun is giving less light to the ocean's surface, then you will also give less energy to transfer the heat, or even the material itself, from the surface to the upper atmosphere. The connection between the surface and the upper atmosphere is less than it would be, including the circulation patterns of the weather and the oceans.
"And then one can think about it another way, if you give less energy to transfer energy from the surface to higher up in the atmosphere, as high as 5 or 8 kilometers, then the chance for the system to produce these so-called thin high-cirrus clouds is less. These are the clouds that are very, very effective as a greenhouse blocker, these thin high-cirrus clouds. This is the idea that Professor Dickenson from MIT has suggested, that the Earth system may act like an iris. If it's too warm, then the iris opens, if it's too cold it closes, so that this fixture can trap heat, providing a very efficient way to warm or cool the Earth system.
"During a solar activity minimum, imagine that you produce less of these high-cirrus clouds, then the ability of the Earth to shed heat itself is a lot easier, therefore the system cools. And then continuing, when you don't have enough energy to bring all of this water vapor and the currents more than a few kilometers up, then it all accumulates at the bottom of the system, producing more of the low clouds. And on low clouds we know that they are very effective at reflecting sunlight. So again, it's another way that the Earth system can cool.
"And even another way to think about it is less energy intercepted in the tropical region, from say 20 or 30 degrees north and south latitudes, then you are able to transfer less heat energy to the polar regions, resulting in the arctic regions getting slightly cooler in that sense as well.
"So these are some of the possible scenarios that we've reached which in sort of a low-sunlight scenario would affect the Earth's weather."
Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.
He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in my opinion".
Oh no. He’s really into it but just because you know activity is low doesn’t mean you can’t get lucky. I think he was holding out great hopes that we’d see one.
Actually, the sunspot activity is low because of global warming. I have it on good authority from NASA.
It’s one thing for people to gripe and complain about these things and disagree with it, but it’s quite *another* to convince your friends and neighbors and relatives and coworkers...
THEREFORE..., it’s also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply *one* video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the *one*...
The following is an *excellent* video documentary on the so-called “Global Warming” I would recommend it to all FReepers. It’s a very well-made documentary.
“The Great Global Warming Swindle”
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
[this is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size...]
It’s worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warming_swindle.php
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course...]
Buy it here...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000WLUXZE
[this one would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...]
I think Algore and his minions should bring a legal case against the sun. The sun shouldn’t be allowed to not have sunspots and to cause global warming! Where’s the justice?!!!! Let’s get the Greenie’s mobilized!!!!!
bttt
So, basically, all we need to do to solve global warming is to rebuild all those coal fired power plants they shut down.Cheaper energy, too.
>>CO2 as a temperature rising condition was disproven 100 years ago.
Sadly, that science has been ignored, while Darwin has been twisted inside to show that it is accurate. The scientific community is just as political as any other and they will cram any scientific theory to fit their political ideology.
http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/02/04/greenhouse-theory-disproved-a-century-ago/<<
I believe you and/or the author misread
What was demonstrated was that green houses don’t work on the greenhouse gas principle. That’s because most heat exchange near the surface relies on convection (i.e. movement of the warmed air). The greenhouse gas theory itself is part of standard physic education.
CO2 is now out outside of its range at any time homosapians have existed on the earth and is undoubtedly having some effect.
What I remain unconvinced of is what portion of the current warming is due to Co2.
>>This doesn’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor in the temperature rise. It says there may be another factor.
What do you base that on?
>>What is sadly lacking is a breakdown as to how much of the rise is from which cause.
Unfortunately that might not be possible. Look into “Chaos Theory”.
It’s a branch of mathematics describing “complex systems”. You may have heard about the “Butterfly-effect” — a butterfly flaps its wings in Peking and a month later you have tornadoes in Kansas.<<
I did study a little chaos math and was a poor student of a physics professor they called the Evangelist of Chaos.
The layman’s statement of the butterfly effect overlooks sensitivity. The weather system turns out not to have enough sensitivity to butterflies to cause many tornadoes. Chaos is frequently confused with the idea that everything is random when in fact the accumulation of random events can be predictable. For example , nobody can tell you where a snowflake will land but they can give good estimates of snow accumulation.
>>Anytime anybody — including a climatologist — tells you with certainty that CO2 levels are directly linked to Global Warming they are guilty of a gross oversimplification. <<
You mean the current global warming? All the physicists and atmospheric dynamics I know agree that the increase by a third in CO2 recently is a factor in global warming.
What I can’t get an answer I can understand is an estimate of how much is from CO2 - I’d take an estimate comparable to a weather forecast. i.e. I expect error bars around the numbers.
Actually the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm may be correct if we’re talking about certain periods before the Industrial Revolution, but even in the 19th century it varied between around 280 ppm and almost 500 ppm. The overall average for the 19th century was about 330 ppm.
What it does clearly explain, is that the insulation (the greenhouse) does not set the thermostat - the Sun does; which is observable with your own home.
Just try adding allot of insulation, and then vastly lower your heater’s thermostat, and see how long your house stays warm anyway. In time, it doesn’t. The insulation helps keep in the heat you’ve given it, but it can’t ADD heat, and even the best insulation (highest CO2 count?) does not stop heat loss, and as lower the heat input it will still cool, eventually, if heat-input is continually reduced, your house will become a well insulated freezer, not a “green house”. So too the earth.
I would not put it past our communists to try and ban any serious study of the sun. The left will at least try to defund as much real science as possible.
He’s saying that CO2 is not significant. Here watch him yourself in this presentation.
April 6th, 2009 — Dr. Soon Presentation
http://www.lakelandgov.net/news/lgn/videos/9055/Utility_Committee_Meeting_2009_04_06.htm
click on the Global Warming link
Beer’s law
re: Beer’s law
is Wikipedia accurate?
“Beer law states that absorption is proportional to the concentration of absorbing species in the material”
That would imply the that a continuing increase in the concentration above 100 ppm would not have a diminishing effect.
Man-made global warming will change to man-made global cooling.........
We now definitely need government help!
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.