Courtesy spaceweather.com
Posted on 08/04/2009 9:01:18 PM PDT by neverdem
The year 2009 has moved into 8th place in the rankings of years with the most sunspot-free days since 1900.
The top 10 are shown in the accompanying graph; three of these have been in the past three years.
In fact, 2008, which was the quietest solar year in a century, could be bettered by 2009. If 70% of the remaining days in 2009 are sunspot free, we’ll pass 2008, bumping it into 3rd place. The greatest number of sunspot free days since the year 1900 was in 1913, with approx. 320. The math shows that this record at least is safe for another year.
Another measure of solar sleep is the 10-centimeter radio flux streaming out from the nearest star to Earth. This too has been at very low levels in 2009, continuing the trend of the past two years. Much research shows that lower solar “wind” leads to more intergalactic particles reaching the earth’s surface, and possibly more cloud formation. Perhaps this is how solar changes relate to Earth temperatures. More particles provide more collection sites for water vapor to condense, hence more clouds.
Some people have said that there is a correlation between this year’s stone quiet hurricane season and the persistently slow solar output, but there is no empirical data to support this.
While there is probably some influence on the longer-term ocean temperatures (roughly correlated with the 11-year solar cycle) as related to solar variance, this year’s tropical downturn is more likely a result of persistent wind shear over the tropics and slightly cooler than average sea temperatures.
One challenge with proving the sun has a hand in climate moods is identical to the ones facing global warming doomsayers: much of the data is based on modeling. In the case of solar research, the data is modeled from the past using available paleo-climate sources (such as ice cores, tree rings and pollen deposits), along with limited measurements from the 1600s onward.
For global warming, the data is carried forth into the future which is even less accurate, as no real data is available.
Future modeling is purely based on extrapolating present and past variations forward.
However, this certainly doesn’t let mankind “off of the hook” on global climate change, but it raises the question as to how deep should trust go using purely modeled data.
The over-riding hard data pointing to something unusual outside of solar radiance variation is the degree of warming that occurred between 1980 and 2000 (the warming has at least temporarily stopped, and in fact a slight global cooling has taken place since then).
While some of this can be pinned on land-use changes at sensor sites, the rural stations have also seen a significant rise during the period, which may be most likely explained by greenhouse gas increases.
There is much to learn about the overall scheme of influences here; but it does seem odd that such a small change in the sun’s energy flow to Earth (about 0.1-0.2%) could be masked by the supposed “strong signal” of human-induced climate change.
Perhaps anthropogenic climate influence is real but much weaker than presently thought? My reasoning is thus: if the industrial outgassing was the culprit in a large temperature increase in the late 20th Century, how could it be so easily masked today, when indeed carbon dioxide emissions are greater now than ever on an annual basis?
But it could be mankind's fingerprints are on the glass, at least smudged in with other factors. We would be wise to let the science continue exploring this question, and keep an open mind to the results either way.
===========================================================
For in-depth opinions (based on data, not emotions) from both points of view:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5549/2049b
Solar output and ocean cycles
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18780
Solar output and 11-year cycle harmonics
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SOLAR_IRRADIANCE/COMPOSITE.v2.PDF
Sun's irradiance not responsible for climate change
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm#summary_table
SORCE data
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5599/1732
Clouds and cosmic rays
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090721090127.htm
Low solar output cancelsglobal warming?
http://bit.ly/4EaL41
Variations in solar output and cosmic rays/clouds
Please don’t confuse the tree huggers and polar bear lovers with stupid and senseless little things like facts and data, it confuses them and then the Obamassiah will have to step in and declare to one and all that you acted stupidly.
Looks more like second place too me.
Could it really be that the industrialized world has done such a wonderful job at eliminating pollutants over the past 100 years, that more warming sunlight is getting to the surface??
.No more peat burning homes
.Few Coal burning heated homes
.Few wood burning homes
.Autos that now emit 5% of what they emmitted in 1980
.Scrubbers on most industrial smokestacks
.More nuc plants worldwide
??? Is global warming a product of:
1. Added sun output hitting Earth due to our recent cleaning up the atmosphere
2. A product of varied sun output, affecting both Earth and our planetary neighbors;
3. Mankind’s footprint on planet Earth
that promises future destruction?
I’ll vote for #1 and #2!
2008 is in second place. 2007 is in ninth place. 2009 is not on the chart.
My point is that we have physicists building these asinine computer models of global warming telling us by exactly how much the earth will warm, and they can't account for clouds or precipitation! These models are the only evidence for global warming. I have a tough time believing any physicist or climatologist genuinely believes in global warming knowing how bad the science is. They're in it for the grant money.
Don’t forget the difference between what was counted as a sunspot in 1913 and 2009.
In the following video documentary — the *one* that all must see — it does go into that mechanism of the sunspots and how it affects a series of events to leads eventually to warming or cooling of the earth. It’s actually not the sun heating up or cooling down that does it, though — so don’t think that... You’ll have to see the video for a good explanation.
It’s one thing 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...]
—
Also, in split parts on YouTube...
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMA6sszChwQ
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERisgJ3QWjk
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HLVYwmZoxc
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr-AG3BA1Go
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbllTsBHuxk
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyK7C1OrAAo
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIX8LcAuMQ
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ZmCDOZbtM
What’s the difference?
Everyone knows these variables are either irrelevant or their contribution is fully understood and has already been taken into account.
(s.)
Bump for later.
I live on high ground near the coast. I want beachfront property.
” 2009 is not on the chart”
But it should be : 166 and counting ;73% spot free days; 24 straight days;http://spaceweather.com/
This was after the experts said the minimum was ending and there was a theory for it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618131402.htm
They are practicing Voodoo Science. The computer model is their Voodoo Doll and they keep trying to poke new pins into these Voodoo Models hoping that physical reality will change. Sorry guys, but your dolls are running out of holes and the solar system could care less about your political science projects.
Obviously then one should assume that there is much more to the suns output then just what can be measured with an irradiance meter. Can you honestly say that there is only a 0.1 to 0.2 % difference in these two suns ?
As I type, 2009 is at 167 days spotless... with over 60% of the year still to be tabulated. See spaceweather.com, or another solar site to download the raw data.
Ah... shoot... I should have mentioned two other things:
1. 1996 had 165 spotless days.
2. The last few years the spot counters have used magnifying glasses and have been counting “Tiny Tims”, “pores” which would not have been seen in 1900, and may not have been or counted as little as a decade or two ago when the satellite monitoring was not available with its lack of optical effects introduced by the atmosphere. It is highly likely that the counts now are substantially higher due to this counting of pores.
Today they count things you can barely see from a telescope in space, 50 years ago what you could see from an on earth observatory and hundreds of years ago through a home made telescope.
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.
