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".
The money quote:
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”.
This doesn’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor in the temperature rise. It says there may be another factor.
What is sadly lacking is a breakdown as to how much of the rise is from which cause.
bookmark
It is so bizarely simple I'd have to say "the science is settled" concerning this issue.
So, where can we get more water vapor? We could, I suppose, heat the ocean's surface ~ maybe with a series of atomic explosions in a little used area. Alternatively we might build more large, shallow lakes ~ maybe extend irrigation systems into marginal lands ~ on a huge scale!
We have an 8,000 year old tradition of extending irrigation and building lakes. No doubt that's had an impact sufficient to hold off the presently overdue return to Ice Age conditions. Still, that's not going to last forever, particularly if we buy into the idea that we need to cool the Earth to protect it from some sort of "runaway greenhouse effect". In that case we'd return to the Ice Age much faster ~ maybe within weeks ~ possibly days!
Sun spots... Don’t let the science to cut flow of billions of dollars into the “warmers” pockets!
ping
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. What that is saying is that with complex-systems (like the Earth's atmosphere) relatively small incremental inputs can have enormous effects given enough time & space. Similarly rather large inputs can seemingly have no discernable effect at all. Very counter-intuitive.
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. They are probably also confusing Cause and Effect. The hard part is knowing when a scientist is speaking in simplified terms so that he can get his point across to a layman, or whether he's just blowing smoke to get his next grant application approved.
My astronomy class went out yesterday to look at the sun through the telescope and my prof was disappointed that there was no sunspot for us to view. Maybe this is the reason. I linked this email to him.
I’m more interested in this stuff than ever before, mainly because I understand it so much better.
If he’s an astronomy prof I’m surprised he doesn’t already know about the low sunspot cycle although many profs I knew in my college days didn’t do much reading outside their textbook.
Harvard Shmarvard... get me a west-coast Chemistry major who I can work with. No more distractions from astronomers or geologists.
We’re in a deep solar minimum...
we broke a lot of older records around here in SE WA state...
go to the NASA web page, note the years 1954 & 2009
A lot of the records that were broken were recorded back around 1954...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/images/deepsolarminimum/centuryplot_gif2.gif
Look at 1944... I’m sure any of you WW2 vets that froze your butts off in the Ardennes would find that winter on the chart 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/
That is science that a fifth grader can understand.
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2.
Excactly.
Geez, we learned about buffered solutions and systems in eqilibrium in high school for cryin’ out loud.
Gee who would have thought that the temperature on earth is somehow connected to the sun’s output. How could that Nobel Prize winning Al Gore have missed such a thing? Perhaps Obama better start thinking about re-engineering the sun so we don’t all freeze. (sarcasm)
There are occasional sunspots. None today.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/realtime-update.html
Dad tells the story from his service in the Ardennes - he fell off his tank as it tipped over (a truck with a gun mounted on it and infantry hanging on for the ride) into a snow bank. Fortunately that the closest he came to becoming a casualty.
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.
