The sun has always been one of the prime drivers for the weather, which creates climate in the long-term. This has been inconvenient for the Cult of Climastrology. So, what is a good little cultist to do?
(CBS News) Sunspots have long been used by climate skeptics to explain away a rise in global temperatures.
They argued that solar activity appeared to trend upwards over the past 300 years, on pace with global temperatures, peaking in the late 20th century. This, adherents say, demonstrates that the sun has played a significant role in modern climate change.But now a group of scientists has found that one method for counting sunspots — as a measure of solar activity — was wrong. Called the Group Sunspot Number, this method showed a rise in sunspots from 1885 to 1945 culminating in what is called the Modern Grand Maximum.
By recalibrating that method in what they call Sunspot Number Version 2.0, Frédéric Clette, director of the World Data Centre, Ed Cliver of the National Solar Observatory and Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University, concluded that sunspot activity had been relatively stable since the 1700s and that there was no Modern Grand Maximum.
The team, which presented its results at the International Astronomical Union in Hawaii, said the findings closely mirror another historical record for sunspot activity, the Wolf Sunspot Number.
The latest findings make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the Industrial Revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.
Surprise!
I had a new friend, a retired Ford Elite model over at my house yesterday. A lovely tall blonde and sweet as a girl. We looked at sunspot active region AR12396 and ate sliced melon together. After she left, I took a photo of the sunspot and sent it to her as a romantic gesture. She said that was absolutely incredible and told me how to find pictures of her online. Which I did, and there were some nudes and now my head is spinning. She knew what she was doing, right?
Point of all this being, AR12396 is almost gone around the limb and I really, really hope that there are some great big new sunspots coming.
Sunspot activity is NOT a good indicator of solar irradiance.
Now just a few weeks ago Teach you were trump(et)ing the threat f a new Ice Age (remember?) although the authors of thT paper clearly stated in the first paragraph of the abstract that even with cycles in synch it would reduce the temps FAR LESS than would be the rise from our current and projected CO2 levels/
Teach I don’t qioye understand the “Surprise”????? The paper says that solar activity is NOT the main cause of climate change. Well then what is changing it? Might it be the increase in C02?
http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/corrected-sunspot-history-suggests-climate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/
“The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.”
So Teach again I ask you
: Why do you think that the temps are going up? Especially with a 10+ year REDUCTION in solar output??????
If only they could come up with ‘gravity 2.0’ we could all fly.
“Why do you think temps are going up…” They’re not. But why do think temps went up in the past?
Denier 101. “It’s not warming!”
Teach,
Can you point out the flaws in the current paper? And while you’re at it can you point out the flaws in all the other papers where they conclude the Sun’s output is not changing enough to account for the current rapid warming?
Does anybody actual read the paper before spewing nonsense? Like that it’s about “irradiance”? Look at the plot of the new data linked below.
The paper says this:
“Still, although the levels of activity were not exceptional except maybe for cycle 19, the particularly long sequence of strong cycles in the late 20th remains a noteworthy episode. Indeed, the 400-year sunspot record and one of its by products, the number of spotless days, show that such a tight sequence of 5 strong cycles over 6 successive cycles (from 17 to 22, except 20), which we can call the “Modern Maximumâ€, is still unique over at least the last four centuries. Given the inertia of natural systems exposed to the solar influences, like the Earth atmosphere-ocean system, this cycle clustering could still induce a peak in the external responses to solar activity, like the Earth climate.
and this:
The recalibrated series may thus indicate that a Grand Maximum needs to be redefined as a tight repetition/clustering of strong cycles over several decades, without requiring exceptionally high amplitudes for those cycles compared to other periods.”
Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wLCEUB9Aw28/U-cGLCEaBPI/AAAAAAAAGMQ/NAl4KtFKmog/s1600/sunspot+integral+2.jpg
48 out of the last 57 years have been periods of EL NINO activity.
Why?
The AGW contention is that ONLY ONE FACTOR DRIVES GLOBAL HEAT………CO2.
Yet there are 1000’s of variables in their experiments that are looked at and rejected……such as pacific rim volcanic activity, super-pluming, El NINO’s, Solar Radiance.
In other words they must move to deny any impact that any one of these things have on Temperature so they can continue to keep their finger on CO2.
When you run a scientific experiment that has too many varibles to count that experiment can never be deemed reliable no matter the outcome.
For example let us suppose a butterfly can fly in winds up to 25 mph. If we put the Butterfly in a wind tunnel with ONE source of WIND blowing in ONE direction and the butterfly is able to fly then voilla we have proven our theory.
However if given the same set of criteria we then add a 1000 different sources of wind all blowing from different directions and the butter fly is unable to fly then does that mean the 1000 sources disprove the theory or does it mean that the 1000 sources need to be removed in order to keep the original thesis as scientific evidence.
Hence we have the AGW crowd…….REMOVE ANYTHING that might alter the weather to keep the original thesis as scientific FACT.
and this is why the Deniers scoff at every report like this coming out….because we know exactly what they are doing.