Of Late, Fewer Sunspots Than Usual 628
esocid writes "The sun has been laying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites. Periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual. The sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, with the next cycle just beginning and expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why. In the past, solar physicists observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots, coinciding with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700." (More below.)
esocid continues: "The Hinode, a Japanese satellite mission with the US and UK as partners, has three telescopes that together show how changes on the sun's surface spread through the solar atmosphere. It orbits 431 miles (694 km) above the Earth, crossing both poles and making one lap every 95 minutes, giving Hinode an uninterrupted view of the sun for several months out of the year. Scientists are not extremely worried, but have added extra ground stations in case of interference from extra solar activity, and are ready for the Sun to resume its activity." (The Little Ice Age is fascinating, full stop.)
solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's not Jupiter... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Funny)
(the pun didn't quite sound right when I used the word orbit)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Funny)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/performance?mode_u=off&errors=0&explain=0&mode_p=on&by=collector&mode_w=off&sd=0&site=www.sun.com&site1=&sample=2&submit=Examine&range=5d&maxy=0 [netcraft.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
FSM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that global climate is never supposed to change is as primitive as any creationist idea.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't make dishonest attacks.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would like to mention is that I am really loving the increasing levels of CO2. It's a perfect compliment for all of the free oxygen we're getting out of the deal. Think about it: oceans warm, ice melts, algae grows in the now exposed and warmer waters and is further fed by the growing levels of CO2. We can see evidence of this happening many times (rock flowering is one such source). Geologists have known that this seems to happen to our planet, largely of its own volition, from time to time, and to tell you the truth: we haven't been worried. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Oh, no, the average global temperature is going up by a degree Celsius over the course of half a century due to the millions of tons of carbon output we have as a species. Yeah, well, when Mount Pinatubo erupted, it released enough ash to lower (bear in mind, this is with global warming working against it) the average planetary temperature by one degree Celsius for two years. We also won't go into the random releasing of tons and tons of methane that was compressed as ice under the oceans quite a long time ago which fried the crap out of the planet. Now THAT was global warming. The planet itself spontaneously released more greenhouse gases than we as a species have since our inception. Oh, the things nature does when no one is paying attention. Honestly, someone should lobby against random acts of nature which are harmful to....nature.
I'm just going to kick back and enjoy the benefits of this naturally occurring process. I'm really okay with more oxygen, and better beach locations popping up around the world that haven't been exploited as such, what with the past temperate spell we've been having (glad to see we're not stuck in that anymore).
On another note, I believe this may encourage a healthier life style for people in general. We've all known for a long time that fat people don't do well in the heat. This is just a little incentive from nature (in small part helped by humans) and I welcome it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
yet they can't seem to figure out if it is 3,000 years old then the ice shelf one generation before it must have collapsed due to the slave labor building the pyramids. It's not some natural collapse when it gets to heavy every 3-5 thousand years, noooo it must be humans fault.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the incredibly rapid 2.5C temp increase [independent.co.uk] in the last 50 years.
Nay, my good man, all is well. Continue whistling and dance that little jig you do so well.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correlation: And I'm Correlation. Causation, you don't actually exist. Just because one event followed another doesn't mean that there's causation.
Causation: CO2 is more efficient at absorbing infrared than N2 or O2. Physics - it works, bitch.
At which point causation beats correlation to a bloody pulp.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Couldn't be the sun causing GW. Why would anyone even think that the primary source of heat in the solar system would be responsible for warming?
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't understand why anyone falls for this argument, it represents a complete lack of respect for science.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Before you go claiming "tinfoil hat science" I would look at the universities where those climatologist teach. With Berkley, Stanford, and any other liberal biased university behind their name, you can bet on their position.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Informative)
Are you perhaps referring to this article from 2001 [sciam.com] which suggests that cosmic rays (which are different from emissions from the Sun, btw) intensify the effect of CFCs?
I suggest that you first read through the resources on realclimate.org on solar forcing, where it has been extensively discussed, and if you wish to dispute their findings, then please attack the science, not the scientist.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it interesting that anytime the facts don't line up with someone's values they say there is a "liberal bias" going on. That is a classic ad hominem attack. It's literally a textbook example of one, but I'm sure that textbook must be biased.
Maybe rational people and the apparent facts of the world have a liberal bias. Or perhaps the forces of unreason in the world have seen a polarized society and chose to exploit one side to support their arguments. Most of the time if someone is greedy and they need public support for themselves all the need to do is claim this is a political issue and generally poor conservatives will support them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't expect climatologists to consider what is happening on other planets just as don't expect an astronomer to predict the weather. However, when you place the two differing studies together, you can reach previously unconsidered conclusions. For example, if all the planets and even asteroids in the solar system are warmer, then you can eliminate all the causes that are unique to one particular solar body. On the other hand, if one particular body is warming more than the others, THEN you look at that particular object to find out what makes that body unique that could be the cause.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Informative)
From MIT [mit.edu]:
Feel smarter now?
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Informative)
Radiated energy is proportional to the _fourth_ power of the temperature. For a black body j = sigma * T^4, for a body that's not quite black, you just plug an emissivity factor in too.
A body heated by an external source (e.g., Earth) reaches equilibrium when the radiated energy equals the incoming energy. So the equation works just the same with j being the _incoming_ energy from the Sun.
What I'm getting at is that the average temperature of Earth is in the ballpark of 300K. We had an increase of 1K in a whole bloody century. That's the whole Global Warming. That's an increase of 0.3% or so. Plugging it back into the StefanBoltzmann law, we need an increase of only 1.003^4=1.01205 times in solar output to _fully_ explain it. That's 1.2% btw.
But even that's a bit over-calculated. Being that the same law applies to the Sun's power output, basically we just need the same 0.3% increase in the Sun's temperature to get that effect, all else being equal. You don't need anything spectacular to happen, really.
Yes, sunspots are a cause of short term variations, but we really don't know what the Sun has been gradually doing over that century. If both Jupiter _and_ Mars have been warming up, maybe the Sun is warming up after all.
And finally, well, if you're that concerned about insults to people's intelligence... maybe you should STFU with the "shut up and don't dare question the High Priests" attitude. Just a thought.
Except ... (Score:5, Informative)
NASA disaggrees with you (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are incorrect. Black body radiation alone only explains an average global temperature of 254K or -19C. The difference between that and the current
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah! Those sun thermometers are super accurate...until they melt...
(I'd be extremely surprised to learn that we have the capability to measure a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the OP has a point, even if it wasn't put all that sophisticatedly. The question of the influence of solar output on the Earth's energy budget is not as settled as you imply. In the first place, he's right, only very subtle changes in the huge amounts of energy flowing in and out of the Earth's ecosystem are required, and these are inherently difficult to measure accurately. Generally speaking, you're subtracting large and nearly equal numbers from each other, which is always tricky.
Secondly, the Sun does more than simply heat the Earth through radiation. It emits ionizing radiation that ionizes the atmosphere (which is what allows over-the-horizon radio communication). It injects charged particles into Earth's magnetic field. It has a magnetic field itself that interacts with that of the Earth, and changes the way charged particles from the Sun and the cosmos hit the Earth. These things may have subtle effects on, for example, cloud formation -- and therefore on the Earth's albedo.
One might well say who cares about all this weird third- and fourth-order stuff if we were talking about big changes in Earth's climate. But we're not. We're not trying to explain an Ice Age, still less a "snowball Earth" event, or the runaway hothouse climate of Venus. We're trying to explain a temperature trend that is so slight that it is not only much smaller than annual and diurnal variations, it is smaller than the unexplained "background noise" variations in the measurement. It's only by averaging over a long time that you can even see any temperature change.
Does that mean the leading explanation of the day for the observed temperature change (anthropogenic CO2 emission) is wrong? Nope. But it very well does suggest a bit of humility about the possibility of other explanations. Mother Nature has a long, long history of confounding "obvious" explanations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The question of the influence of solar output on the Earth's energy budget is not as settled as you imply. In the first place, he's right, only very subtle changes in the huge amounts of energy flowing in and out of the Earth's ecosystem are required, and these are inherently difficult to measure accurately. Generally speaking, you're subtracting large and nearly equal numbers from each other, which is always tricky.
You're confusing two issues: measuring solar input, and measuring the Earth's energy balance. The latter is hard. The former can be done with precision. We do know how large the changes in the Sun's output have been, and they're not really very large. In fact, they've been flat for about 50 years.
Secondly, the Sun does more than simply heat the Earth through radiation. [...] These things may have subtle effects on, for example, cloud formation -- and therefore on the Earth's albedo.
That's true, but you're still going to run into the problem that it's hard to explain a changing climate using solar output which isn't changing.
It's only by averaging over a long time that you can even see any temperature change.
You have to average over about 20-30 years to get a smooth si
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Insightful)
increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is known to have a warming effect
Wrong. It's known to increase the warming effect in the laboratory. That's easy physics. But in real life? That's harder. We don't know enough about the atmosphere to calculate the effect with enough certainty, and we can't measure the effect because we can't do the control experiment (go back in time 200 years, not start burning fossil fuels, and see what happens).
Even if the effect of the CO2 is smaller than an as yet unproven warming by the sun: We can't change the sun, can we?
You speak as if reducing CO2 emissions is entirely a cost-free enterprise. But it's not. It would have enormous dislocating economic effects. That means it will greatly reduce the size and health of the future world economy, slow down scientific and technological progress (which both depend on a healthy economy to pay for them), and greatly strain social and political agreements that keep world peace.
That's all fine if it's necessary to prevent an Ice Age or runaway warming that will leave Earth like Venus.
But what if it's not? The problem is, we can only make such a staggeringly huge change in our habits perhaps once in a thousand years. By making that change now, in the direction of reducing CO2 emissions, we give up the ability to make any similarly massive change for a long time. Is that a wise bet? Or might there be some other climate effect, driven by the Sun, say, to which we will in the future really wish we had preserved our ability to respond?
If reducing global CO2 emissions is something like buying insurance, we do need to consider the fact that that insurance is very expensive, and, once we buy it, we'll have virtually nothing left in the bank with which to buy anything else we might need in the future. That doesn't say we shouldn't do it. That does say we should as a species approach this giant purchase with extreme caution, the way one might hesitate before committing to buy a very large house in an uncertain real estate market.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's known to increase the warming effect in the laboratory. That's easy physics. But in real life? That's harder.
The spectral bands of CO2 don't go away if the CO2 is in the free atmosphere instead of a lab.
We don't know enough about the atmosphere to calculate the effect with enough certainty
Says you. The strength of the CO2 greenhouse effect is not the real uncertainty here; that's known pretty well from line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The uncertainties are mostly in the atmospheric feedbacks that you mentioned before (e.g., clouds).
[Reducing CO2 emissions] would have enormous dislocating economic effects. That means it will greatly reduce the size and health of the future world economy, slow down scientific and technological progress (which both depend on a healthy economy to pay for them), and greatly strain social and political agreements that keep world peace.
Again, says you. Have you read any of the economics? Try here [www.ipcc.ch] or here [yale.edu].
Besides, whether it's expensive is not the question. The question is whether cutting C
Dearie, that was satire (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. No, dearie. That was my satire at people who treat it as some kind of fucked-up religion. The moment you go some variant of "OMG, you're not worthy to question The Great Scientists", you're not about science any more.
Get this: you don't need anyone's seal of approval to use your own head. Einstein was a nobody working as a patent office clerk, when he thought he could do better than the great Lorentz. Galileo was a nobody to question the great scientists of the Aristotelian establishment. Etc.
There is _nothing_ that's sacrosanct and beyond questioning, no matter what Great Man said it. Even if he's a scirentist. In fact, _especially_ if he's a scientist.
Now I'm not saying that you or I are as smart as Einstein but the principle remains the same. Capisci? Attitudes like, basically, "OMG, don't even try to question The Scientists, you're not worth it," have _nothing_ to do with _science_. That's how religion works, not science.
Science works more like, "Ok, let's see your data."
And in a nutshell _that_ is what ticks me off about the carbon cultists. That fucked up attitude that there's only one Truth, some High Priests... err... "Scientists" hand it down as some sacrosanct beyond-questioning Holy Truth, and you're not worthy to question Them. And everyone is the Enemy if they even try to think about it on their own. That's _not_ science. That's religion in pseudo-science garb.
Regardless of whether the scientists studying that are right or right, and they probably are are real scientists... the gang of rabid eco-zealots waging holy crusade in their name, are not. They just perverted that science into some weird kind of religion.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The trillion-dollar question is what factors combine to affect the Earth's temperature, and whether/how these factors can be influenced by people.
There ARE "carbon cultists" in the sense the GP described -- people that truly have zero grasp of the science involved in climate change and in what practical effect any sort of change will have on the Earth's populations. Every climate model that suggests a strong correlation between human activity and m
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Interesting)
From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm [sciencedaily.com]
"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene," said Cahalan. "Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
My question is what is the optimum temperature to sustain life on our planet? I've searched and can't find that answer and would appreciate any help. I'm not denying warming or trying to flame, I am serious about the question.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Interesting)
For the life that has been around for the relatively recent past, the temperatures of the relatively recent past are preferred... that's how evolution works, things adapt to the conditions that are available, or they die out. There is no real optimum, any sudden change from the prevailing norm means some species or other is fucked.
Although, if you just want to maximise the total mass of alive stuff on the face of the Earth, tropical temperatures seem to work well (lot of biomass in the rainforests), so a planet that's mostly fairly warm, with some deserts at the equator where it gets hotter and some temperate regions further north is probably your best bet. Shame about the polar bears though.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
You could change the temperature by a hundred degrees in either direction and the earth would cheerfully continue to sustain life. However the life sustained would not include us, nor most other species.
Talking about an "optimal" temperature isn't really meaningful. But I will tell you what *is* optimal and extremely meaningful for sustaining life... a constant temperature. Or at least one that only changes slowly over geological timescales.
Changing temperatures, especially rapidly changing temperatures, are extremely destructive to life. It only takes a fairly small change to start a cascade of extinctions. And it also only takes a small change to be extremely disruptive to us. Humans live everywhere from the equator to the deep arctic circle, but in every case we are highly adapted- to and reliant-on the expected conditions. If the climate changes even a small amount, the effects would be wide ranging and harmful to us. Not the least of such effects is changes in rain and other agricultural factors. Areas where we expect low rainfall can be inundated with flooding, while major farming areas and population centers can be hit with devastating droughts. A less deadly but still disruptive effect is is agricultural areas remain viable, but farmers have to figure out and adapt to different crops viable in the new climate conditions. Another major issue is that warming brings a massive increase in the range of mosquitoes and deadly mosquito-born diseases like malaria. Another issue is that many major cities and vast swaths of population live along low-lying coastal areas, and even a modest rise in sea level would be a disruption to humanity of colossal proportions. It's not merely about land that would fall below the new sea level, you have to consider hurricane storm surges. Every foot of higher sea level massively increases the frequency and range of land flooded under a storm surge. The disruptive effects on humanity just go on and on. We have built our civilization on hundreds of years of hard lessons about the local climate and what the water supply is and what grows where and what the various animal insect and disease ranges are and on the sea level and what the storm flood threats are and on and on and on. Change itself is enormously disruptive and costly.
-
Yes, the alarmists are lying (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html [petitionproject.org]
Only 40 "climatologists", but 3000+ in highly relevant fields.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060009 [mediamatters.org]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine#Case_Study:_The_Oregon_Petition [sourcewatch.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they don't. All the models I am running in my datacenter are using a "solar constant" for solar energy flux, and modulate it only through albedo variations.
I have yet to see a model that takes solar variability into account. Mostly because, to be honest, we don't know much about said variability. So we'd be hard pressed to model it. Hey, give us a break, we have had satellites up there for only a few decades, and the Sun has cyc
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Interesting)
Errrm
Not only do climate scientists not take this into account, they actively conduct witch hunts on anybody who does attempt to even research it.
Read "The Chilling Stars" for an absolutely horrifying -- if you have any respect for the scientific method at all -- chronicle of how the rather plausible Svensmark theories on linkage of solar activity with cosmic rays and therefore cloud formation and therefore climate change -- and MOST IMPORTANTLY, how the historically low amount of clouds in the late 20th C. could very well be responsible for ALL the observed warming relegating C02 to an irrelevance -- was and still is, on the whole, treated with rather less respect and integrity than the Catholic Church gave Gailileo.
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Insightful)
(you're excluded from UN research funds if you claim the sun warms the earth, the UN is certainly not the only organisation doing that btw.)
So while whether they take em up on that offer or not, one thing's for sure : the scientist that claim it's the sun are the poorer ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you're right, all the climate scientists are wrong, the climate isn't changing, you can have your SUV and its $20:gallon gas with the AC blasting and the windows open.
Well, not all of them are wrong. Many of them dispute man made global warming. Both sides can't be wrong!
Here are two articles I found that may shed light on the whole "Sun output has no effect climate" argument. Here [global-war...limate.com] is one. Here [web.cern.ch] is another. The second one is from CERN (PDF warning). They have some interesting ideas as to why an increase in cosmic rays can cause cooling.
A striking correlation has recently been observed between global cloud cover and the flux of incident cosmic rays. The effect of naturalv ariations in the cosmic ray flux is large, causing estimated changes in the EarthÃ(TM)s energy radiation balance that are comparable to those attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always wonder about the warming deniers. I, myself, and a anthropogenic warming agnostic, but support measures to reduce carbon (and other greenhouse) emissions, just to error on the side of caution.
A) If they are wrong, and we do nothing, then there is no cost.
B) If they are wrong, and we do something, then there is a short term economic cost.
C) If they are right, and we do nothing, then there is a HUGE long term economic, and hum
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Attn: 400 scientist worldwide have come forward and denounced global warming theory. Some of them are actually listed on the IPCC's original report."
Inhofe's 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked [thedailygreen.com]Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Informative)
Insightful? Yikes!!!
Jupiter is experiencing warming NEAR THE POLES. Not the entire planet. Did you read the research behind what you are spouting? Or are you just cherry-picking the sound bites that make you point you have already 'decided' must be true.
If you decided to read it, then you surely came across the fact that "While the analysis remains to be proven, it is seen by other researchers as interesting and, importantly, testable even with large backyard telescopes."
So while evidence that is mounting in favor of the cause of the RETENTION of the heat on the planet earth, which causes it to retain heat energy in the infrared part of the spectrum, then that is just 'junk science' and needs to be pointed out how there is no hard evidence to support it.
But when the same limited data set and hypothesis is put forward that jupiter is experiencing climate change, that lack of actual evidence to prove the theory is something that can just be brushed aside for the sake of arguing against the same cirumstances on Earth that have similar holes in the data set?
Next time, you need to be able to think about what you are parroting, lest it make you like a complete fool.
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice confirmation bias you got going there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you crank up the CO2 content of the atmosphere, it's like adding additional layers of insulation to an glass greenhouse. And CO2 doesn't cover the entire infrared spectrum - it's like there are parts of the gre
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:4, Funny)
The sun isn't changing. Man causes climate change, the climate change causes solar activity to change.
Now that I've proved it the solution is to create a economic cap-and-trade system that creates a secondary market for the redistribution of wealth from people that earned it(good, bad, ugly, fairly, or unfairly) to people that didn't.
Surely you know that the movements of pieces of green paper around the earth will cause a perfect eden to exist like northern California worldwide don't you?
Re:solar warming, that's why. (Score:5, Interesting)
Very true - that is why the older, embedded politicians and companies like it so much. Who is hurt under cap and trade? STARTUPS!
As a startup, (building rockets, for example), I am not allowed to pollute, or at least have to pay some arbitrary amount for it. And who do I pay? My competition, who were established before the caps and now can just sit back and accept the checks.
Why are you against progress? You want anyone trying to create something new to be beholden to the status quo? Really, how does your system help anyone that is not a large corporation?
You mean the Sun's spot production has been .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You mean the Sun's spot production has been ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You mean the Sun's spot production has been ... (Score:5, Funny)
wait, what?
This reminds me of... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:5, Interesting)
McCain is right on Global Warming (Score:4, Insightful)
With new data pointing to a possible solar cause to global climate change, it does not change the fact that sucking up all the available fuels and dumping CO2 into the atomsphere is making the world a worse place to live.
Hopefully we can make the right changes whether or not the science backs us up.
I'm an ignorant layman (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read that sunspots are caused by the sun's internal magnetic field, how do we measure it?
2012 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bush got into office.
It's the Mayan Prophecy! (Score:4, Interesting)
2012? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://skepdic.com/maya.html [skepdic.com]
so the sun is just preparing to shut down, for the coming end of the world, of course
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wheat price vs sun spots (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/herschel.html [ucar.edu]
I find it amazing that this relationship (sun spots vs agricultural output) is dismissed so easily by the current anti-CO2 crowd. I am all for eliminating pollution but I am very worried that the focus on CO2 is completely wrong and is doing a great disservice to humanity.
CO2 is the breath of life.
_GP_
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding? It is this very observation (solar activity vs earth temperature) that has led scientists to conclude that global warming is caused by another factor beyond solar output.
Scientists haven't used wheat prices per se, but there exist hundreds of years of sunspot data from astronomers around the world.
Increased solar activity leads directly to increased terrestrial t
My TinFoil Prediction (Score:3, Funny)
2. Group B declares Nuh-uh! Not it doesn't!
3. World expends great effort in reducing human contribution, reducing warming by (a little bit)
4. Natural warming/cooling cycles shift, reducing warming by (a lot)
5. Earth cools due to natural cycle before effects of #3 really kick in.
6. Group A declares GLOBAL COOLING also came from human behavior. See! Told You So! Our efforts worked! We should do more of #3!
7. Group B says zOMG! The earth is cooling! Build more SUVs! Save the planet! Save the tropical fish from extinction!
8. The current arguments continue
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No wonder 20 meters is dead (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's ok. At least we're on the upswing rather than the downswing.
Natural Variation (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note the period of 'no sunspots' is referred to as the Maunder Minimum, though it should be noted that there were still sunspots, and the cycles did continue, just at a greatly reduced intensity.
Note: I do not look at the sun directly, nor do I play someone who does so on TV.
Where are the numbers from? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is really really *really* hard to say. Our data on sunspots in prior to about 1750 is pretty dismal. Most of the mentions of sunspots are casual or even accidental observation. You can find a lot of data on this at the NOAA ftp site:
Reports of sunspots from 164BC to 1918AD [noaa.gov]
Monthly average of sunsports from 1749 to present [noaa.gov]
Note two things: One, that there were reports of sunspots between 1650 and 1700; two, that the data prior to 1749 is inaccurate and (pardon the pun) spotty.
Note that the monthly averages file (the second one) is fairly accurate, as the older data in that file was made by the Royal Observatory and the later data in that file was made by the NOAA. I find it really hard to jump to the conclusion that the little ice age was a result of sunspots. Without a time machine, I don't think we could say that with any degree of certainty.
Re:I blame (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:4, Informative)
I was thinking more like the snow in China, and the hurricane season that hasn't happened in 4 years. But oh, we're going to get more hurricanes, any day now.
I mean by satellites operated without AGW funding on the line. NASA keeps changing its historical data, as do other people.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ [theregister.co.uk]
But really, the prediction is pretty simple. For the last six months, the earth's temperature has fallen, according to satellite measurements.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt [ssmi.com]
The reason given for this in AGW circles is the recently ended LaNina. If temperatures continue to fall, then, AGW theories won't stack up.
But the main point is this: I've not seen a single climate (as in non-weather event), that justifies the amount of money proposed be spent on AGW. Just give me one predicted event... and I'll see you a snow in Iraq.
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah, if it only were a straw man....
International Energy Agency Report [yahoo.com]
Now, if we blow through this money, and knock our emissions down, we still wind up with a CO2 level STILL HIGHER THAN TODAY.
http://ucsaction.org/campaign/3_6_07_sanders_waxman_climate_bills/explanation [ucsaction.org]
Meaning that, we will spend 45 trillion dollars to basically get today's weather.
Now, let's consider what this means. It means we have to use 1/5th of the energy we presently use now. By any conceivable measure, modern society places the wealth of a society based on how much energy it can consume. All things being equal, spending money to get the same or less of an effect will make people poorer. I mean, in a perfect world, where oil just poured out of a big new 100 billion barrel find in Montana and we didn't have to do anything about AGW, we could take that 45 trillion and feed the world, cure AIDs, build a base on Mars, and still have enough money to invade Iraq 20 times over. It's a lot of money to basically make us poorer.
We might have to do it, after all. But, let's call this for what it is. Because of climate change, humanity is about to become a whole lot poorer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That hasn't happened either. I work in hurricane insurance software, and it just hasn't happened.
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:5, Informative)
Even if that were true, which it isn't [nasa.gov], one would expect *cooling* during this half of the cycle.
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:4, Insightful)
I am stunned
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Global warming my blue butt (Score:4, Insightful)
No discernable warming since 2000? And this gets labeled informative? Sorry, but you can't just make up arguments. 2005 is the warmest year on record since records started being kept. In fact every one of the 7 years since 2000 is in the top 8 warmest years on record [wikipedia.org] (NOAA data), and there is an obvious pattern of warming over that period as well. So sorry, you don't even have correlation, let alone causation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly determining warming/cooling on a short scale is surprisingly much argued.