.JPG)
This image of the sun shows no sunspots continuing to be the case
Posted on 08/21/2009 6:31:03 PM PDT by neverdem
This image of the sun shows no sunspots continuing to be the case
The sun seems to be back to its slumbering ways as we head towards the fall 2009.
During the spring and summer months, sunspot activity, one measure of the sun’s energy output (another is the 10.7cm radio flux), was quite active. In July, the strongest flare in two years erupted from a spot that was rotating across the face of the sun. July was the third month in a row with heightened activity; this suggested a trend which would at last fall in line with projections for solar change.
However, solar physics is still a science very much on the frontier of discovery. I have read some blogs where contributors to “Web” thoughts are quite harsh and quick to weigh in that these missed forecasts show that scientists haven’t a clue about what the sun is doing.
Such viewpoints illustrate poor understanding of what science is all about. It’s a discovery process. Meteorologists don’t always get the forecast right (which is frustrating to me and all weather scientists) but it doesn’t mean our projections have no value at all. Astronomers have had to “change their story” over the centuries as better detection methods became available, etc. Furthermore, natural processes stump the most learned experts at times: earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, and so forth.
Now, let’s lay aside the hits and misses of the science community and focus on what the sun is doing now. Since mid-July our friendly neighborhood star has gone blank again. It’s the longest blank streak in a year. This means a continuation of the deepest solar minimum in a hundred years: at least for now. The longest number of consecutive blank days during the present cycle 23/24 minimum was 52 during the summer of 2008. The most recent count was 41 as of August 20th.
If 2009 logs 64% blank days during the remainder of the year, it will better 2008. Given that the ratio YTD is 4/5 (or about 80%) through August 20, it’s quite possible 2009 will displace 2008 as the quietest year since 1913.
None of this is to say we’re entering some kind of “Dalton Minimum” or worse yet a “Maunder Minimum”. If this were to occur, then it’s possible a more significant and prolonged global cooling could occur. However the data supporting such a conclusion, although somewhat correlated to previous temperature dips, is not an iron clad case. Just as global warming as presented today is not.
If global warming were so over-riding of any natural process, (the warming of 1980-2000 is offered up as “proof”), please tell me why the trend has gone neutral to slightly cooler over the past few years. One would expect a continued upward trend given more and more carbon dioxide and methane in the air every year. Perhaps the sun and more likely oceanic cycles have a lot to do with this variation. If these fluctuations out of our control can make such a difference (as the 1997-1998 El Nino did with worldwide warming) in the global temperature distribution then who’s to say that the late 20th Century surge in heat is just another significant but natural anomaly like the sun’s present sleepiness, or record cold during the past few winters in Canada and the Great Lakes?
The model projections of a few years ago have completely missed the boat regarding 2009 conditions. Human–induced global warming (climate change) advocates will quickly retort that the models weren’t as accurate back then. Fair enough; but we’re still not seeing the response one would expect of a consistent upward trend in temperatures with more recent numbers. Now some are claiming that warming has taken a break until 2015, after which it will resume. Excuse me? This is the crux of my point; the story keeps changing but the problem is the data doesn’t match up. Just as with the sun, this points to an incomplete knowledge.
If the human influence is easily overshadowed (by cooling) during years when the LaNina is only moderate and arctic ice is less than 30 years ago, it begs the question what’s really going on.
Perhaps mankind is contributing to global climate change; if so, which is certainly possible, the signal may be much less than the projections alarmists put forth. The climate change could be due to urbanization, desertification and deforestation, which are all serious global issues we should aggressively combat.
As for arctic ice, unusual weather patterns and ocean currents play a role; even the NSIDC stated on August 4, 2009 that unseasonably strong southerly wind currents were primarily to blame for rapid July ice melt. This is something one would expect within a range of values over time. Please remember the arctic sea ice database is only 30 years old (it comes from satellites beginning in 1979) so the record minimum of 2007 means it’s the lowest in 30 years, which isn’t so remarkable.
Finally, this author is neither a “global warming denier” nor a “global cooling denier”. The fact that a lot of other scientists trumpet global warming/cooling (many more in the warm camp of course) doom doesn’t satisfy me that either assertion is true.
Consistent data would.
About ten thousand years...
I walk beside you bro..but what do you base that assessment on?
Also, song : )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M4vI_XMgu8
“The fact that a lot of other scientists trumpet global warming/cooling (many more in the warm camp of course) doom doesn’t satisfy me that either assertion is true.
Consistent data would.”
BINGO! Consistent data with consistent modeling results.
The Bible, other scientists’ work and my own studies for about 50 years... :-)
cuz..the bible is history..but sometimes I think you are getting this from Welteislehre or Hörbiger.
I don’t even know anymore Bro.
for later view
......Global warming hype could be masking a more immediate climate problem. .....
There it is..... they still insist on the presence of man made climatic in put. We would cook if not saved by the dearth of sunspots.
Well, I’m not associated with Hitler and his henchmen, if that’s what you mean... LOL... and so, I’m not getting my understanding of this from that... :-)
However, when you say, “..but sometimes I think you are getting this from...” — it’s indicating to me that you’re following some of my comments on this, and that has me puzzled. Where and what have you been following from me on this? Just wondering...
Besides, you see my homepage, so that should say all you need to know, actually...
Well..., I don’t read that particular statement in that referenced article above, as saying that we’re being saved by the dearth of sunspots.
On the contrary, I read that particular referenced article as saying that the *hype* (i.e., means “false explanations” of “global warming”) is covering up (in the public’s minds) what is a more serious problem, the coming cold spell and the loss of crop production and that we will be profoundly affected by that...
I’m definitely in the Creationist camp, because that’s what God says in the Bible... :-) And then, as I said, I also read what many scientists have shown over the years and decades (with their own work and studies on the matter) that I’ve read them about this same thing and how it also accords with the Bible, and (as I said above), my own reading on the matter over 50 years...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtcaRRngcw
: )
Bro I aint internets detecting nothing.
Not my style.
Nothing in the Bible gives the age of the Earth.
No legitimate scientist believes in a young Earth.
Global cooling bump.
So, you say, but others say differently... :-)
I like Johnny Cash, too... got the album because of “The Man Comes Around”... :-) saw and heard it at the end of a movie I went to and got the album...
—
But, I was just asking because I was wondering where you got the “sometimes” from... in regards to me... (and you said it, not me... :-) ...)
[ quote: “..but sometimes I think you are getting this from Welteislehre or Hörbiger.” — hence again, I was wondering where this “sometimes” was coming from... ]
Because I felt it. A fleeting thought.
Okay..., then. Usually words mean precise things, and in that instance, those words indicated differently than what you’re saying now... so that’s why I was asking. The bottom line is that I wouldn’t be deriving any of my ideas from the likes of Hitler and his henchmen, so you can be assured that it’s not from that source (or the sources that they used...). :-)
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.