Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Long Sunspot Cycle 23 Predicts a Significant Temperature Decrease in Cycle 24
Science Direct.Com ^ | February 2, 2012 | Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum

Posted on 03/17/2012 10:49:11 PM PDT by Paul Pierett

a b s t r a c t

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict anaverage temperature decrease of at least 1:0 1C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 forth stations and are as analyzed. We find forth Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal. & 2012. Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedirect.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algore; climate; climatechange; globalcooling; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; gorebullwarming; manbearpig; maunderminimum
Good stuff. It is great to see the Gorians on the Run. I am doing the happy dance. Like, totally amateur happy dance.
1 posted on 03/17/2012 10:49:20 PM PDT by Paul Pierett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett

This find does not provide an opportunity to expand the government, raise taxes or gain power.


2 posted on 03/17/2012 10:58:56 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Obama proved in Texas- that health care , like all fed programs, is a political compliance weapon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel

Thanks Paul Pierett.


3 posted on 03/17/2012 11:03:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

This find does not provide an opportunity to expand the government, raise taxes or gain power.


They’ll find a way.


4 posted on 03/17/2012 11:06:15 PM PDT by unkus (Silence Is Consent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett

Big heat generating ball of hydrogen gas powered by nuclear fusion over 93 million miles away that we have no control of whatsoever as the MAJOR component in our climate?

Nah, man controls the climate because some academics with blinders on in ivory towers told me so, who are you? President of the anti-hubris club?


5 posted on 03/17/2012 11:08:43 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett

Why has it been colder on Mars?


6 posted on 03/17/2012 11:18:33 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The Center for Sun-Climate Research at the DNSC (Danish National Space Center) investigates the connection between variations in the intensity of cosmic rays and climatic changes on Earth. This field of research has been given the name 'cosmoclimatology'"..."Cosmic ray intensities – and therefore cloudiness – keep changing because the Sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy, before they can reach the Earth." :
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate
______________________________________________________

Here's an excellent ~new book out on the subject titled "The Chilling Stars, 2nd Edition: A Cosmic View of Climate Change". It's written by one of the top scientists advancing the theory (Henrik Svensmark, of the above mentioned Danish National Space Center/DNSC).

"The authors explain their theory that sub-atomic particles from exploded stars have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/books/t/1840468157-the_chilling_stars_the_new_theory_of_climate_change.htm

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Amazon Books: "The Chilling Stars, 2nd Edition: A Cosmic View of Climate Change"
http://www.amazon.com/Chilling-Stars-2nd-Cosmic-Climate/dp/1840468661 zs90]
______________________________________________________

Here's a sunspot chart showing the various peaks and dips throughout the past centuries. Note the "Medieval Max". It corresponds to the "Medieval Warm Period". The "Maunder Minimum" corresponds to the "Little Ice Age", and the "Modern Max" to the recent warming trend we had been experiencing, at least until the past 15 years or so.

"Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity. Note the present day is on the left-hand side of this figure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity

7 posted on 03/18/2012 12:08:08 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett
From BBC News [yr: 2004]:
"A new [2004] analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich used ice cores from Greenland to construct a picture of our star's activity in the past. They say that over the last century the number of sunspots rose at the same time that the Earth's climate became steadily warmer."...

"In particular, it has been noted that between about 1645 and 1715, few sunspots were seen on the Sun's surface. This period is called the Maunder Minimum after the English astronomer who studied it. It coincided with a spell of prolonged cold weather often referred to as the "Little Ice Age". Solar scientists strongly suspect there is a link between the two events - but the exact mechanism remains elusive."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
____________________________________________________

From NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory's "Not So Frequently Asked Questions" section:

Q-Does the number of sunspots have any effect on the climate here on Earth?

A-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.

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.

Many active regions produce giant outflows of material that are called Coronal Mass Ejections. These ejections drag with them some of the more intense magnetic fields that are found in the active regions. The magnetic fields act as a shield for high-energy particles coming from various sources in our galaxy (outside the solar system). These "cosmic rays" (CRs) cause ionization of molecules in the atmosphere, and thereby can cause clouds to form (because the ionized molecules or dust particle can act as "seeds" for drop formation).

If clouds are formed very high in the atmosphere, the net result is a heating of the Earth - it acts as a "blanket" that keeps warmth in.

If clouds are formed lower down in the atmosphere, they reflect sunlight better than they keep heat inside, so the net result is cooling.

Which processes are dominant is still a matter of research.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/notsofaq.html#SUNSPOT_CLIMATE

8 posted on 03/18/2012 12:12:07 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

This is a great lesson in propaganda, they have brainwashed our children as well as willing adults to this global warming..uh global cooling..uh climate change hoax. It is a ponzi scheme of global proportions to siphon American tax payer money to the world community. Not only are we supporting the free loaders hear they want us to support them world wide and of coarse there will be some skimming off the top by the criminals involved.


9 posted on 03/18/2012 4:29:34 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (B B)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett
Looks like it may get cooler later this century.... Hope not too cool, though. I moved to FL from the Midwest over 25 years ago to get away from those awful winters.

From the article:

Looking at , which shows the variation in the length of solar cycles, we realize that short cycles like the one that ended in 1996, have only been observed three times in 300 years. After the shortest cycles, sudden changes too much longer cycles have always taken place, and thereafter there is a slow shortening of the next cycles, which take many cycles to reach a new minimum. This recurrent pattern tells us that we can expect several long cycles in the next decades. Analysis of the SCL back to 1600 has shown a periodic behavior with period 188 year, now entering a phase with increasing SCL the next (). concludes that the solar activity is presently going through a brief transition period (2000–2014), which will be followed by a Grand Minimum of the Maunder type, most probably starting in the twenties of the present century. Another prediction, based on reduced solar irradiance due to reduced solar radius, is a series of lower solar activity cycles leading to a Maunder like minimum starting around 2040 ().

10 posted on 03/18/2012 4:46:58 AM PDT by June2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
This chart makes me shudder (and then go "brrrrrrrr....."). It's based on the movement of a solar conveyer belt... now going SLOWER than ever recorded, as long as we've been able to measure it, and portends many years with global-freezing NO Sunspots whatsoever:


11 posted on 03/18/2012 5:27:31 AM PDT by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett

——25–56%-——

Given the wide variance, one wonders about the accuracy of the precise number 56


12 posted on 03/18/2012 5:35:02 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
In the past few years, we have had little to zero sunspots - now the sun seems to be waking up - lots of activity.

The “Little Ice Age impacted Asia and Europe - with devastating results. Some glaciers even buried villages. Crop failures, starvation, disease - 900,000 million dead.

The Little Ice Age is implicit in driving the Vikings from their communities in Greenland - (30,000 people) but no one knows where they went. However, there is evidence that they came down through the waterways - St. Lawrence/Great Lakes - to places like what is now upper NY state (the Indians there are known as the People of the Long House - the only tribes that built the Viking-like dwellings) - and that some may have gone further west - and integrated with the Mandans - who built yet another type of dwelling similar to another type of Viking structure. There were physical similarities as well.

However, at the time Europe and Asia were buried in cold, there wasn't much in the Americas, history wise - and not much if any, to say about such devastating weather. Indeed, the first winter that the Pilgrims spent in Massachusetts - arriving in Dec with no Holiday Inn down the road - they recorded only about 4 snow storms for the season, and none of any great depth - indeed, about the same as this season in Maine - we had 3 ‘plowable’ storms, and not much snow each time. We've had a, to me, wonderfully mild winter - while Europe and Asia have been devastated - buried in snow and severe cold - some villages totally cut off, trains unable to run, food had to be helicoptered in.

So - along with the evidence that the north pole has shifted, requiring recalibration in GPS systems - to keep planes - in Miami, for example - from landing in fields instead of the runways. Now if the pole has shifted - the earth warbled a bit ? and tilted our hemisphere a bit towards warmer seasons - then the other half of the world - Europe and Asia - it would follow, would, unfortunately, be on the colder side of the tilt?

That's my unqualified take on it - and I'm sticking to it - cause I don't have enough years left to wait for another warming period ;o)

BTW, the articles postulations come from studies in Norway - they are on ‘the other side.”

13 posted on 03/18/2012 5:43:45 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ("If you bought it - a truck brought it" - and because of the price of gas/it costs more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
BTW, the articles postulations come from studies in Norway - they are on ‘the other side.”

They are on the other side of the GoreBull Warming baloney. In other words, they oppose the man-made warming BS.

14 posted on 03/18/2012 5:49:08 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ETL
They are on the other side of the GoreBull Warming baloney. In other words, they oppose the man-made warming BS.

yes, I know - didn't make myself clear - (gets that way when you're an ole great-gramma) - I meant they are on the 'other side" of world from us - ;o) - which may, once again, become the VERY cold side...if the tilt favors us - it doesn't favor them. 'glad we're on this side of The Pond ;o)

15 posted on 03/18/2012 6:09:04 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ("If you bought it - a truck brought it" - and because of the price of gas/it costs more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Because the Earth turns on its axis, pointing the North pole closer towards the Sun would have an identical effect for all Northern lands, be they Norway, Alaska, Canada, Siberia or Greenland.

You cannot create a model where we get warmer and Norway gets cooler due to the tilt of the Earth.

It spins.


16 posted on 03/18/2012 6:23:06 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

glad we’re on this side of The Pond ;o)

Until the glaciers start forming in AK and Canada ... It has been estimated that it only took 100 years for the previous Ice Age glaciers to reach 2 km depth ...


17 posted on 03/18/2012 6:26:56 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
You cannot create a model where we get warmer and Norway gets cooler due to the tilt of the Earth.

Interestingly, the Earth is approximately 3 million miles CLOSER to the sun during the northern hemisphere winter than its summer. It's colder during the winter only because the sun doesn't climb as high in the sky as it does during summer (due to Earth's tilted axis of rotation), and we get only 'glancing', lo angle rays, as opposed to high, overhead direct ones like in summer. In contrast, the southern hemisphere, during its winter (our summer) has both the sun at the low angle AND 3 million miles further away. So one would think they would be at least somewhat colder during their winter, and somewhat warmer during their summer, than we have it in the northern hemisphere. But there apparently isn't much of a difference, average temperature-wise. Experts say it's because the southern hemisphere has more ocean surface than the northern. ie, less land surface to heat up.

18 posted on 03/18/2012 7:04:28 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High [relates to low sunspot activity (and cooling trend on Earth?)]
NASA.GOV ^ | September 29, 2009

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High "We're experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, "so it is no surprise that cosmic rays are at record levels for the Space Age [i.e. past 50+ years or so -etl]."

Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are subatomic particles--mainly protons but also some heavy nuclei--accelerated to almost light speed by distant supernova explosions. Cosmic rays cause "air showers" of secondary particles when they hit Earth's atmosphere; they pose a health hazard to astronauts; and a single cosmic ray can disable a satellite if it hits an unlucky integrated circuit.

The sun's magnetic field is our first line of defense against these highly-charged, energetic particles. The entire solar system from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is surrounded by a bubble of magnetism called "the heliosphere." It springs from the sun's inner magnetic dynamo and is inflated to gargantuan proportions by the solar wind. When a cosmic ray tries to enter the solar system, it must fight through the heliosphere's outer layers; and if it makes it inside, there is a thicket of magnetic fields waiting to scatter and deflect the intruder.


An artist's concept of the heliosphere, a magnetic bubble that partially protects the solar system from cosmic rays.

"At times of low solar activity, this natural shielding is weakened, and more cosmic rays are able to reach the inner solar system," explains Pesnell."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm

19 posted on 03/18/2012 7:06:33 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett; SunkenCiv; Alas Babylon!
From NASA...

Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age

As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.

"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."

And it is a very quiet time. If solar activity continues as low as it has been, 2008 could rack up a whopping 290 spotless days by the end of December, making it a century-level year in terms of spotlessness.

Hathaway cautions that this development may sound more exciting than it actually is: "While the solar minimum of 2008 is shaping up to be the deepest of the Space Age, it is still unremarkable compared to the long and deep solar minima of the late 19th and early 20th centuries." Those earlier minima routinely racked up 200 to 300 spotless days per year.

Some solar physicists are welcoming the lull.

"This gives us a chance to study the sun without the complications of sunspots," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Right now we have the best instrumentation in history looking at the sun. There is a whole fleet of spacecraft devoted to solar physics--SOHO, Hinode, ACE, STEREO and others. We're bound to learn new things during this long solar minimum."

As an example he offers helioseismology: "By monitoring the sun's vibrating surface, helioseismologists can probe the stellar interior in much the same way geologists use earthquakes to probe inside Earth. With sunspots out of the way, we gain a better view of the sun's subsurface winds and inner magnetic dynamo."

"There is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell. "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim."

Pesnell is NASA's project scientist for the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), a new spacecraft equipped to study both solar irradiance and helioseismic waves. Construction of SDO is complete, he says, and it has passed pre-launch vibration and thermal testing. "We are ready to launch! Solar minimum is a great time to go."

Coinciding with the string of blank suns is a 50-year record low in solar wind pressure, a recent discovery of the Ulysses spacecraft. (See the Science@NASA story Solar Wind Loses Pressure.) The pressure drop began years before the current minimum, so it is unclear how the two phenomena are connected, if at all. This is another mystery for SDO and the others.

Who knew the blank sun could be so interesting?

More to come...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm

Related article:
Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low - Sept. 23, 2008
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
____________________________________________________

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

20 posted on 03/18/2012 7:09:14 AM PDT by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.

What are the odds, my birth date is 9-27-1954.

21 posted on 03/18/2012 7:36:02 AM PDT by justrepublican (Screaming like a "Vexatious requester" at a Wellstone memorial...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Yes we do - and it is thus Bush’s fault!


22 posted on 03/18/2012 7:44:29 AM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
You cannot create a model where we get warmer and Norway gets cooler due to the tilt of the Earth.

It spins.

Unless it oscillates too, on a 24 hour cycle. Although I think we would notice that kind of wobble.

:)

23 posted on 03/18/2012 8:19:36 AM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett

But how can we be sure our SUVs and Bar-B-Qs etc aren’t causing the solar spots to vary, dangerously effecting our fragile environment?


24 posted on 03/18/2012 8:45:23 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Liberals vote the way they feel, conservatives vote the way they think. NRA <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Pierett; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global ?Warming? PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

25 posted on 03/18/2012 4:04:13 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson