August 2008: The first Sunspot-less Month since June 1913
Posted by jennifer, September 1st, 2008 - under Uncategorized.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
In 1610 Galileo observed dark features on the face of the sun – sunspots. In the preface to a little book Galileo wrote on sunspots that was published in 1613, he was credited with having discovered sunspots but an Englishman, Thomas Harriott, and a Dutchman, Johann Fabricius, probably beat him to that discovery.
What we do know is that since the invention of the telescope, Europeans have been keenly observing sunspot activity and some have been correlating it with global temperatures.*
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes the mean monthly sunspot number back to January 1749.
There were no sunspots during a period of unusual cold in the northern hemisphere known as the Maunder Minimum which extended some 70 years from 1645 to 1715.
Because the number of sunspots has shown a general trend of decline since March 2006 there has been much chatter amongst global warming skeptics with some suggesting that we are perhaps in for an extended period of cooling
Now there is more excitement, because August 2008 appears to be the first month since June 1913 without a sunspot.
[But perhaps I should wait until there is a zero recorded at the official NOAA site before announcing this?]
David H. Hathaway, Solar Physics Team Leader at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, has suggested that this solar cycle 24 is just taking a while to get started.
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academies of Sciences’ Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometry project, has predicted for some time that because of low solar activity we may be entering another period similar to the late 17th century and that this may start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.**
————————————————-
* Why few sunspots could correlate with low tempertures by Richard Mackey:
“The Earth’s geomagnetic field provides a buffer against solar radiation, the solar wind and radiation of all types generated elsewhere in the Universe. The field’s strength depends on solar output and the lunisolar tides. A stronger geomagnetic field will deflect more cosmic radiation than a weaker one.
“A highly active Sun can make the geomagnetic field stronger; a relative inactive Sun will make it weaker. Other things being equal, a strong geomagnetic field contributes to a warmer climate; a weaker field to a cooler climate. But the effect may not be uniform across the planet. Currently, the geomagnetic field seems to be weakening, contributing to global cooling.
“The heliosphere, and the termination shock sphere within it, deflects cosmic radiation. The Earth’s geomagnetic field also deflects cosmic radiation. The strength of the heliosphere depends on the Sun’s activity levels. High levels of solar activity reduce the volume of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, contributing to global warming. High levels of solar activity generate more turbulence in the heliosphere scattering galactic cosmic rays before they reach the inner planets. Conversely, a greater volume of cosmic rays enter our atmosphere during times of low solar activity because the Heliospheric magnetic fields are smoother with less scattering of galactic cosmic rays, resulting in global cooling.”
(from ‘Much more to the Earth’s Climate than human activity’, Submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review by Richard Mackey, February 2008)
** Lawrence Solomon profiled Dr Abdussamtov in a piece entitled Look to Mars for the truth on global warming, The Deniers — Part IX, Financial Post Published: Friday, February 02, 2007.
Published papers by Dr Abudssamotov predicting cooling include: ‘Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle and the Peaks of several Succeeding Cycles on the basis of Long-Term Variations in the Solar Radius or Solar Constant’, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, 2007, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp 97-100, and ‘Long-Term variations of the Integral radiation Flux and Possible Temperature Changes in the Solar Core’, Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 328-332, 2005.
Hmmmm…. Mackey seems to have some seriously mixed-up notions about energy, radiation and magnetism…. let’s have a look, shall we?
“The Earth’s geomagnetic field provides a buffer against solar radiation, the solar wind and radiation of all types generated elsewhere in the Universe.” Only partially true. A magnetic field will deflect charged particles, but has no effect whatsoever on electromagnetic radiation (x-rays, microwaves, gamma rays etc).
“The field’s strength depends on solar output and the lunisolar tides.” What is this nonsense about? The earth’s geomagnetic field is produced via a molten iron core. It has exactly zilch to do with sunspots, solar output or what the current sea level in the Bay of Fundy happens to be.
“A stronger geomagnetic field will deflect more cosmic radiation than a weaker one.” Well, at least he knows THAT much!
“A highly active Sun can make the geomagnetic field stronger; a relative inactive Sun will make it weaker.” And a witch weighs the same as a duck. This is pure fantasy, with no basis in fact. Where does this guy get this stuff?
“Other things being equal, a strong geomagnetic field contributes to a warmer climate; a weaker field to a cooler climate.” Wait, what? Exactly how is this related? The earth’s temperature is the result of a balance between energy intake and energy output. A magnetic field has no effect whatsoever on electromagnetic radiation, which is the driving force behind the earth’s energy budget. The earth radiates heat via infrared radiation, and recieves its energy via a broader spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (with a percentage of internally generated heat from radioactive decay).
“But the effect may not be uniform across the planet.” Score two for Mr. Mackey.
“Currently, the geomagnetic field seems to be weakening, contributing to global cooling.” Ummm… yeah. See 2 points above.
“The heliosphere, and the termination shock sphere within it, deflects cosmic radiation. The Earth’s geomagnetic field also deflects cosmic radiation. The strength of the heliosphere depends on the Sun’s activity levels. High levels of solar activity reduce the volume of cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, contributing to global warming.” Ok, he had my attention up until he equated higher levels of incoming radiation with global COOLING. Does everyone see the obvious contradiction here?
“High levels of solar activity generate more turbulence in the heliosphere scattering galactic cosmic rays before they reach the inner planets. Conversely, a greater volume of cosmic rays enter our atmosphere during times of low solar activity because the Heliospheric magnetic fields are smoother with less scattering of galactic cosmic rays, resulting in global cooling.” Same as above, but in reverse.
Now, I’m not saying that sunspots don’t somehow correlate with the earth’s climactic trends. I don’t have the answers I’d like to to make that statement. Mr. Mackey obviously does not either. In fact he’s so far off in the weeds on this, I have to wonder if he’s not flirting with insanity since his marriage to physics and logic is apparently headed towards an ugly divorce…..
Luke,
“CO2 powerful medicine. Remember the PETM?
And this Nature paper cinches it:…”
Thanks for the reminder. Reality is nothing. CO2 levels and Climate Papers written by BELIEVERS are all that is important!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lets do some simple maths on the UHI.
The globe has warmed by 0.8C the last century.
71% of the earth is ocean. An additional ~10% is covered by ice. That leaves 19% of the earth’s surface which can suffer UHI. Lets pretend that 19% is wall to wall cities all built since 1913.
NOW if global warming is due to UHI then the land has to have warmed by (1/0.19)*0.8C = 4.2C… but wait a further 30% of the world’s land is forest and a further 20% is desert. That means the UHI island must be a truly fantastic 8.4C over the last century.
No prizes for why the sceptics never publish anything about the UHI impact on global temperatures…
Once again Jen, well done on showing the globe has warmed by 0.8C and this warming is not caused by the sun.
As for the resident sceptics, your non-published non-science doesn’t survive the giggle test.
“Now, I’m not saying that sunspots don’t somehow correlate with the earth’s climactic trends. I don’t have the answers I’d like to to make that statement. Mr. Mackey obviously does not either. In fact he’s so far off in the weeds on this, I have to wonder if he’s not flirting with insanity since his marriage to physics and logic is apparently headed towards an ugly divorce…..”
Fair comment. I agree entirely. Mr Wackey is a real scream. The very real worry here though is just what inclusion of his weird science piece tells us about……
The only way the AGW bandwagon is going to be faced down is through the use of good old fashioned cold (!) hard science (empirical or theoretical).
We got into this pickle because post-modernism debased modern scientific rigour and group-think started to displace deep-think.
Every day, in numerous ways, the AGW bandwagon ’scientists’ urinate on the good work of their less egotistical, more humble peers (whose resentment BTW is slowly but surely rising) AND the good work of their numerous, more rigorous predecessors.
For a recent proof just look at the ‘Greenland’s Ice Follows Dramatic Fall in Carbon Dioxide Levels?’ thread i.e. the ineffably silly Nature ‘paper’ which kicked it off – a truly classic example.
We are never, ever, ever going to face down the AGW catastrophist demon with weird science. You can bank that one!
Luke, you know as well as I do that 50/50 predictions abounded based on the fact that much of this year’s ice would be single-year and easier to melt. Last year was a fluke and the fact that there is a recovery is the relevant fact.
The antarctic is oscillating around an average. Nothing significant there. How’s the trend though? You love those.
Did 1998 or 2005 have the lowest ice levels? Of course not. I hate it when you play stupid.
David, thanks for the useless maths. You’ve of course ignored the papers I brought to your attention. Even rural sites in forests or deserts often have stations beside buildings and asphalt.
No one has stated that UHI accounts for all warming. Even if it were 20% this would be very significant in regards to CO2 forcings.
Coverage is not global. Despite your number of 19% land, I can tell you that UAH uses up to 33% weighting of the land readings for the global average. (Global trend of 0.13, land 0.17, ocean 0.11). Similar procedures are adopted for the other temperature metrics.
Joel the UHI is a scientific fact. It is also a fact that it is a tiny contributor to global warming. Your papers don’t have any relevance to this.
By your reckoning the warming trend is 80% correct. Great… you can now join the consensus!
PS I didn’t say 19% land… land covers 30% (but much of this is ice…).
Ok David, since there seems to be agreement that 0.3-0.5 c of the change is due to natural causes, this does not leave very much for co2’s contribution , does it?
And why is the change in temp so much less than models predict for the increase in co2 that we have seen?
And why has the hot spot predicted failed to eventuate, except by making adjustments?
Quite right Steve, it is essential that we do not do what teh warmers excel at. That is try and create change by manipulation or threat. And any of you believers who do not think either of those points are pertinent better go back and look at some of Hansen’s blatant and deliberate lies.
Hansen has done science no favours and the IPCC reports are riddled with references back to his work.
The models are acknowledged to contain large gaps in there understanding and yet we are supposed to believe there output?
If the facts are so clear, why exagerate?
David – “Joel the UHI is a scientific fact. It is also a fact that it is a tiny contributor to global warming.”
David, every paper the IPCC relies on to show no significant impact from UHI is utter crap. Please show me 1 that’s worth the paper its written on.
Perhaps Joel and Toby can get together, and consolidate your ideas. At the moment you two are all over the place with your denial.
You two are giving “sceptics” a bad name.
David, with you logic its no wonder there are so many sceptics!
you state “By your reckoning the warming trend is 80% correct. Great… you can now join the consensus!” so if we agree on 80% of the agreed 0.7c rise …then we have just over 0.55c of real increase. Now listen carefully….if 0.3-0.5c increase over the last century is natural, that doesnt leave much for co2..does it?
how about answering the questions…oh thats right play the man not the question…or the point….
Come on David, one study. Peterson? Parker?
So far you’ve made a sweeping generalisation that UHI doesn’t matter without supporting it other than with some shonky math.
Toby and Joel, I am not sure what you are debating – perhaps you can sumarise. We are in agreement that UHI does not explain global warming – unless you count Atlantis – and Jen has already shown us that the sun does not explain global warming.
That leaves the greenhouse effect. Now you might think 0.5 to 0.8C isn’t much, but it has led to 30cm of sea level rise, a 40% decline in snow cover in OZ in spring, and the collapse of the summer Arctic ice pack. Further a 1C rise translates into a stream-flow reduction in the MDB of 8%. We’ve only increased CO2 by 30%.. just ponder what the world will look like when that number is 300%.
The IPCC has provided you with 100,000s of pages of peer reviewed science over the last 20 years, with many life-times worth of reading. It is not for me to save you the effort of reading what is freely and openly available to you – being a sceptic requires some effort and an inquisitive mind.
The name of Timo Niroma does not seem to come up in these sunspot discussions unless I have missed it. Here is the link:http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
It provides a very interesting analysis.
David yet again you are obfuscating the point. AND you throw in some rubbish about a 30 cm increase in sea level due to a rise from 0.5 to 0.8c? Where is this sea level rise?
My point remains exactly as i made it a few posts a go. 0.7c is the generally accepted temp rise over teh last 100 years, the sun accounts for between 0.3 and 0.5c of this. If the UHI effect reduces the real increase by 20%…..your words “By your reckoning the warming trend is 80% correct. Great… you can now join the consensus!” ( I assume that is your position?)then the temp rise is 0.56c adjusted for UHI. So all this additional co2 has caused 0.26c to 0.056 c increase. DOESNT MAKE MUCH OF A CASE TO BE CONCERNED DOES IT?!
Where do you pluck a 40% decline in snow cover in spring from? recently that would hardly be surprising given teh drought and lack of rain?!..see what happens this year with an unusually good snow season?
The IPCC is a political body that bases its prognosis on models. They make abundantly clear that they do not understand many of the inputs and feedbacks.
The models have been shown to be innacurate and to require fudge factors to get even consistently close in matching with the past, let alone their inability to make predictions about the future events, some of which are now historical events.
The IPCC had to remove the MWP with Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick to try to get people concerned.
Its been shown that the sun has been at its hottest for 1000 years, and low and behold temps are back near where they were during teh MWP.
There are many scientists who dispute the degree of warming likley to occur from a doubling of co2. infact the IPCC seem to be so unsure of it that they refuse to even discuss the science of it in the 4th report and simply refer us back to teh first report. Many of teh numbers in their formulae have been shown in recent blogs here to be highly debatable. try cohenite and J F Pitmtmans comments for starters http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003366.html#comments
And last but not least, the IPCC has to keep referring to Hansen articles. Anything relying on him has to be questionable because he has made it abundantly clear that it is alright to lie if its for the right reasons.
You seem to think that we sceptics are sceptical because we have not done our homework. On the contrary many here have started from a point of beleiving in the AGW catastrophe, certainly I started from that point. 6 years later and several 1000 hours and the case against continues to mount against in my opinion.
Also let me make clear its the degree of warming that I am highly sceptical about and peoples faith in models to make predictions.
The politics however is what really scares me, and peoples apparent lack of sanity when discussing possible solutions to a possible problem.
Sorry I shoudl also have highlight Barry Moore’s comments from the thread suggested above and several others ongoing at the moment where he is raising serious questions about co2.
As #23 spots aretiill more frequent than those of #24, expect another such month before this time next year.
“Toby and Joel, I am not sure what you are debating – perhaps you can sumarise. We are in agreement that UHI does not explain global warming – unless you count Atlantis – and Jen has already shown us that the sun does not explain global warming.”
No in fact you are lying. And lies ought to have no part in your analysis.