New Solar Cycle Prediction

NASA ^ | May 29, 2009 | Dr. Tony Phillips

[Talisker]

An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots.

[ziravan]

"If you were a real scientist you'd understand that such a simple, direct question is clear evidence that you don't comprehend the complexity of the analysis required to interpret the validity of the datastream or the statistical boundaries involved in the proper assessment of the relevent domains."

You're hired.

[Charles Martel]

The solar output will peak on December 23 2012 and the earth will be engulfed with flairs which will kill anyone facing the sun. Probably 90% or even all life will die.

So what we do on 12/23/2012 is stand facing *away* from the sun. So easy, even a Democrat can do it. ;-)

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The solar output will peak on December 23 2012 and the earth will be engulfed with flairs which will kill anyone facing the sun. Probably 90% or even all life will die.

SHHH! QUIET! That's supposed to be only for you, me, Art Bell, the Lone Gunmen, Mulder, Scully, and modern Mayans. Now EVERYONE will know how to survive, you fool!

[calex59]

Yep, it started, we are in it now, but so far almost a total absence of sun spot activity is all they have to work with. A new cycle starts every 11 years, the spots go up to a peak and then back down to a minimum(varies cycle to cycle)and during the Maunder Minimum there was very little sun spot activity, which coincided with the start of the little ice age.

[jongaltsr]

The solar output will peak on December 23 2012 and the earth will be engulfed with flairs which will kill anyone facing the sun. Probably 90% or even all life will die.

SHHH! QUIET! That's supposed to be only for you, me, Art Bell, the Lone Gunmen, Mulder, Scully, and modern Mayans. Now EVERYONE will know how to survive, you fool!

As for myself, I'm just going to close my eyes - stick my head up my aSS and relax. I'll be fine.

[calex59]

10 Meters he**, I can barely get out with my HF rig! I have a heck of a time talking down to LA from up here near Sac on 40 meters.

[Royal Wulff]

The sun cycles are the prime heating/cooling change mechanism, but the lowest sunspot activity in a 100 years produces the 9th warmest year since 1875? That’s very funny.

Please STFU. There are lags in the climate system. The earth's atmosphere does not respond immediately to variations in heat input. The heat content of the atmosphere is very small compared to that of the oceans. And the atmosphere has two huge heat capacitors at each pole which regulate temperature by transferring huge amounts of heat at constant temperature (that of melting ice).

[Question_Assumptions]

From what I understand, the solar cycles are also marked by the polarity of the sunspots and that hasn’t changed yet in the few weak ones that temporarily appeared.

[Question_Assumptions]

See this entry from less than a month ago on WattsUpWithThat.com.

[2ndClassCitizen]

Would you please explain the meaning of your last sentence in words that my simple mind could perhaps understand?

[2ndClassCitizen]

Do you have a reliable source for your statement.

There are people who analyze data and I have read some of their writings.

The CO2 levels are high and the temperature is falling. It kind of puts the lie to global warming in my book.

Also, CO2 levels rising have preceded previous “ice ages”. That also puts the lie to the green beenies.

Al Gore refuses to debate with real scientists who want to challenge his facts, his conclusions, and anything else that he has offered.

This too puts the lie to global warming.

What is global warming? It is a set of incomplete facts and incorrect analyses that purport to demonstrate that technology that the green beanies do not like based upon their belief structure. It kind of reminds me of the nazis and how they blamed jews for all their ills. Our modern green beanies are no better than those nazis.

[justa-hairyape]

There are lags in the climate system.

So let me get this straight. The AGW proponents have stopped there past few years of cooling denial and they are now stating that the cooling should have been greater ? These guys really are complete idiots. No other explanation fits their modeled behavior.

[justa-hairyape]

Very simple logic. AGW models have all predicted that increased CO2 levels can only lead to warmer temperatures. They were all wrong. Temperature trend since 1998 is down, while CO2 levels increased. Why did these models fail ? These models primarily ignored the effects of solar induced changes. The only theories that correctly predicted the falling temperature trend are those that placed proper emphasis on changes in solar output as well as placing the the proper emphasis on CO2 induced heating.

The above explains why the most honest of the AGW idiots have come out and stated that solar induced changes may delay global warming.

[Neoliberalnot]

I can make this statement with certainty; the sun will eventually burn out and the earth will die. No need to worry because there is not a dang thing any Al Gohole can do to alter the course of the life of our sun.

[TXnMA]

Were you intellectually honest enough to watch the video in comment #11?

The long term data consistently show that atmospheric CO₂ concentration follows temperature -- with a several year lag.

IOW, elevated temperature causes CO₂ to increase -- not the other way 'round as the Gorebull Waruming idiots claim.

Watch the video -- and note who the speakers are (including the co-founder of Greenpeace...) Then come back and see if you want to support your "strange logic" and single data-point position.

~~~~~~~~~~~

My prediction is that this is the last we will hear from you on this thread...

[TXnMA]

Publishing that abrupt departure from reality as a prediction is absurd. My sixth-grade granddaughter looked over my shoulder, and said, "Why did they make it suddenly jump upward like that?"

No wonder they "neglected" to publish several cycles of history; based on memory, that would have shown that their "prediction" has zero relationship to reality...

Those NASA fakers must know they are in a heap o' trouble when they have to start publishing such obvious nonsense...

[Talisker]

Would you please explain the meaning of your last sentence in words that my simple mind could perhaps understand?

Sure. It means, No.

[PA Engineer]

It’s a very complicate issue, that remains largley [sic] in doubt, but kool-aid is kool-aid no matter which side is serving it.

Sounds like you have been hitting up the purple stuff pretty hard.


The reason CO2 levels are a "lagging" versus a "leading" indicator is solubility of CO2 in both soils and sea water based on temperature. As the oceans warm they release more CO2. This is basic high school physics.

Now here is a test for all of you AGW believing Animists. Take a very warm beer and a very cold beer. Shake both cans. Point the cans at your face and open them. Can you predict how much of soaking you are going to take with each?

If you haven't figured out yet, AGW belief is a primitive religion for the scientifically ignorant and/or dishonest. It is nothing more then the Animist belief of sacrificing virgins to appease the volcano gods. Funny, cap and trade will have the same results.

The sun has been and always will be the leading cause of cooling and warming of the earth, but probably not how you or many think. Solar winds and the magnetic fields vary with sunspot cycles. It is this phenomina that influences global climate. Maybe you should also check out Milankovitch cycles.

Finally CO2 is an extremely weak "greenhouse" gas and AGW scientists tend to believe they can violate boundary theory in their "computer" models.

[jpsb]

"2008 is the 9th warmest year in the last 150"

Says who?

[2ndClassCitizen]

I agree with your assertion.