Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 12° London Hi 14°C / Lo 9°C

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?

Scientists are baffled by what they’re seeing on the Sun’s surface – nothing at all. And this lack of activity could have a major impact on global warming. David Whitehouse investigates

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it's gone on far longer than anyone expected - and there is no sign of the Sun waking up

AFP

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it's gone on far longer than anyone expected - and there is no sign of the Sun waking up

Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed? Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change. But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots.

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.

Our Sun is the primary force of the Earth’s climate system, driving atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. It lies behind every aspect of the Earth’s climate and is, of course, a key component of the greenhouse effect. But there is another factor to be considered. When the Sun has gone quiet like this before, it coincided with the earth cooling slightly and there is speculation that a similar thing could happen now. If so, it could alter all our predictions of climate change, and show that our understanding of climate change might not be anywhere near as good as we thought.

Sunspots are dark, cooler patches on the Sun’s surface that come and go in a roughly 11-year cycle, first noticed in 1843. They have gone away before. They were absent in the 17th century – a period called the “Maunder Minimum” after the scientist who spotted it. Crucially, it has been observed that the periods when the Sun’s activity is high and low are related to warm and cool climatic periods. The weak Sun in the 17th century coincided with the so-called Little Ice Age. The Sun took a dip between 1790 and 1830 and the earth also cooled a little. It was weak during the cold Iron Age, and active during the warm Bronze Age. Recent research suggests that in the past 12,000 years there have been 27 grand minima and 19 grand maxima.

Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” The Sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. But according to the scientific consensus, the Sun has had only a minor recent effect on climate change.

Many scientists believe that the Sun was the major player on the Earth’s climate until the past few decades, when the greenhouse effect from increasing levels of carbon dioxide overwhelmed it.

Computer models suggest that of the 0.5C increase in global average temperatures over the past 30 years, only 10-20 per cent of the temperature variations observed were down to the Sun, although some said it was 50 per cent.

But around the turn of the century things started to change. Within a few years of the Sun’s activity starting to decline, the rise in the Earth’s temperature began to slow and has now been constant since the turn of the century. This was at the same time that the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide carried on rising. So, is the Sun’s quietness responsible for the tail-off in global warming and if not, what is?

There are some clues as to what’s going on. Although at solar maxima there are more sunspots on the Sun’s surface, their dimming effect is more than offset by the appearance of bright patches on the Sun’s disc called faculae – Italian for “little torches”. Overall, during an 11-year solar cycle the Sun’s output changes by only 0.1 per cent, an amount considered by many to be too small a variation to change much on earth. But there is another way of looking it. While this 0.1 per cent variation is small as a percentage, in terms of absolute energy levels it is enormous, amounting to a highly significant 1.3 Watts of energy per square metre at the Earth. This means that during the solar cycle’s rising phase from solar minima to maxima, the Sun’s increasing brightness has the same climate-forcing effect as that from increasing atmospheric greenhouse gasses. There is recent research suggesting that solar variability can have a very strong regional climatic influence on Earth – in fact stronger than any man-made greenhouse effect across vast swathes of the Earth. And that could rewrite the rules.

No one knows what will happen or how it will effect our understanding of climate change on Earth. If the Earth cools under a quiet Sun, then it may be an indication that the increase in the Sun’s activity since the Little Ice Age has been the dominant factor in global temperature rises. That would also mean that we have overestimated the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to an increase of carbon dioxide from the pre-industrial three parts per 10,000 by volume to today’s four parts per 10,000. Or the sun could compete with global warming, holding it back for a while. For now, all scientists can do, along with the rest of us, is to watch and wait.

Dr David Whitehouse is author of ‘The Sun: A Biography’ (John Wiley)

The Sun explained...

Core The energy of the Sun comes from nuclear fusion reactions that occur deep inside the core

Radiative zone The area that surrounds the core. Energy travels through it by radiation

Convective zone This zone extends from the radiative zone to the Sun’s surface. It consists of “boiling” convection cells

Photosphere The top layer of the Sun. It is this that we see when we look at the Sun in natural light

Filament A strand of solar plasma held up by the Sun’s magnetic field that can be seen against its surface

Chromosphere A layer of the Sun’s atmosphere above the photosphere, around 2000km deep

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 6
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>
[info]citizen_craig wrote:
Sunday, 26 April 2009 at 11:24 pm (UTC)
"Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed?"

Why would you draw this as a inference, given that the last decade has seen most of recorded history's warmest years?

Things should have been below the long term average if solar activity was playing a big role.

The last year or so has been a little cooler than of late thanks to La Nina but still well above the long term average.

You seem to be encouraging readers to take a sceptical view of global warming without explaining why.


Global Climate
[info]global_changes wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
The sun has been on a declining quiet spell since 1985, which is normally part of an 11 year cycle, which this time has gone on longer than usual. Despite this global temperatures has still increased, this is not because the activity of the sun has no effect, but because of increasing climate change and CO2 emissions. Global warming has slowed since the suns slump in activity, but still increased, so to say the sun has no effect is naive, its because the sun is quieter that we are not seeing worse effects, when it heats up again, we will be in trouble.
Re: Global Climate - [info]joelkatz - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Global Climate - [info]morvel - Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]bishbashbong - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC) Expand
Global Warming - Utter Rubbish - [info]mike4626 - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Global Warming - Utter Rubbish - [info]radishey - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Brilliant article
[info]willhaygarth wrote:
Sunday, 26 April 2009 at 11:59 pm (UTC)
I dont agree with citizen craig,
It is obvious from all the global temperature datasets that the worlds annual temperature hasn't increased since 2001 - so although we live in a warmer decade than of late and the warmest years are within it - there has been no increase in global temperatures recently. It certainly isn't the same as the 1980 - 98 period when we saw relatively rapid warming. Something has changed in the past ten years.
This is a brilliant article - lots of good science and the latest research that points to awkward questions for those who take a too simplistic view of 'global warming'
well done Independent. At last good 'science' writing about climate change..
Re: Brilliant article
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 03:46 am (UTC)
'It is obvious from all the global temperature datasets that the worlds annual temperature hasn't increased since 2001'

If that is the case, why does NASA declare 2005 to be the warmest year ever?

From the VASA website:

The year 2005 was the warmest year in over a century, according to NASA scientists studying temperature data from around the world.

Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.

Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic.



Re: Brilliant article - [info]vandervekken - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]surecure - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]someofusknow - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 11:20 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]surecure - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 12:30 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]someofusknow - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 02:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]surecure - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 03:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]someofusknow - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 07:20 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]surecure - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 01:53 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]someofusknow - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 10:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]surecure - Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 03:58 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]colinru - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]vandervekken - Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 01:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]someofusknow - Wednesday, 29 April 2009 at 04:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]drianh - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 10:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]someofusknow - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 10:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Brilliant article - [info]thecrisp69 - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 04:41 am (UTC) Expand
[info]highflight2 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:11 am (UTC)
Well, let's just wait and see whether or not global warming is due to man's influence or is a factor of solar activity.

Just how embarrassing it would be to find that the guilt that is being laid on us has all been a mistake.

Economists have been shown not to understand their data. I don't feel it is beyond belief to find that scientists and politicians might have made similar misjudgements.
[info]robstating wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:35 am (UTC)
In the end, whether global warming has or has not been caused by human activity, the drive towards sustainability and 'green' living has far further reaching consequences. It's time to treat our world with respect, regardless. Not in question, is how humans are causing mass-extinctions of animals across the globe, destroying natural habitats at will and wastefully using resourses with little care towards the effects of doing so. If then it is a question of "guilt that is being laid on us" as 'highflight2' stated, rest assured that the Sun's part in global warming will not be an end to the guilt fo humanity.
(no subject) - [info]juicybob - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]vhawk1951 - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]comradekaff - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 03:53 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]wetgash - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 01:25 pm (UTC) Expand
excellent article
[info]willhaygarth wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:45 am (UTC)
robstating
you might be right - but this is science not guilt - there is no alternative to finding out exactly what is going on. If we do not then we will end up deeper in the you know what that you think we already are. Saying that the science doesn't matter because we have to act now, in case its too late when we really know, is a recipe for catastrophe.
There is no alternative to finding out EXACTLY what is happening.
Excellent article.
Re: excellent article
[info]robstating wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:09 pm (UTC)
Willhaygarth
Perhaps I should expand on my point a little. I agree entirely that we should find out exactly what is happening with the aid of comprehensive and accurate science. To deny that would be strangely naive. My point was, not that we should act without evidence, but that increasing global temperatures are only part of a larger environmental picture.
The assertion made on the post previous to mine, was that our guilt for causing environmental problems could somehow be lifted if it turns out the Sun is responsible for global warming, and not the huge levels of man-made pollution now popularly believed to be the cause. Presumably then, guilt free, we could go on polluting at will, safe in the knowledge that it was the Sun after all.
My counter point was that, to do so, would be taking a very narrow perspective of the impact of human activity on the environment, and that the processes now being put in place to minimise global warming are equally as relevant to all the other environmental impacts we as humans are making. Global warming is one part of a wider environmental picture, of which the guilt of humanity must be concerned with. So the Sun ends up causing the melting of the polar ice caps and changing weather systems. The Sun doesn't pour toxic chemicals into river systems, deplete fish stocks, cut down rain forests, spray DDT, et cetera, all of which are things we should feel guilty about. From a 'scientific' perspective, relieving ourselves of guilt, would be like coming to a conclusion on our environmental impact without considering any other variables. I'm sure that would not be acceptable to you as a rational 'scientifically-minded' person.
In the end, it is science that people choose to ignore when they damage the environment. It may indeed prove to be embarrassing to some if they are wrong about the causes of global warming, but guilt relieving it will not be.
Oh Dear
[info]nled63 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:54 am (UTC)

Oh dear, now we will be hearing endless trumpeting from the gas-guzzling crowd & like spoilers who deny that humanity's activities play any part in the downgrading of the planetary environment. It might well transpire that estimates of human impact upon environment will have to be modified, maybe even changed completely, but such revision hardly absolves us of responsibility for the planet & its environment. In any event we will have to radically re-think our relationship to the planet; the waste & destruction, thoughtless pollution & governmental indifference to agricultural & industrial miscreance are all matters that will have to be addressed with more determination & urgency than has seemed apparent heretofore. Sunspots - or the lack of them - are not a new reason for idle complacency.
Re: Oh Dear
[info]joelkatz wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 12:53 pm (UTC)
Yes, that's it. The most important thing is that we "Do Something". It doesn't matter if we have good evidence that it will help. It just matters that it seems right and we go head and do it right now if not sooner.

You are advocating the very things you are complaining about. People ran off and released huge amounts of CO2, a massive change in behavior, without understanding the consequences. So your solution is to run off and make more big changes in behavior without understanding the consequences?

How about we learn our lesson and learn what the effects are going to be *before* we do things that might cause harm from now on?
Re: Oh Dear - [info]mrjohn01 - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 04:50 am (UTC) Expand
sunspsots disappearing
[info]hlaubscher wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 01:47 am (UTC)
The late George Lindsay,famous for his unusual predictions, most of which have come to pass, wrote back in the 1970s, that the earth would, after a period rising temperatures in the early years of the 21st century, move into a period of falling temperatures, which he suggested could be "a little ice age." He also around the 1970s predicted the draught areas would expand ;markedly, resulting in the fall off in the growth of earth's population because of hunger re-sulting from lower food supplies, reflecting the spreading drought.

Periods of low sunspot activity have not been positive for financial markets or economic progress. Lindsay also predicted the breakup of the Soviet Union 200 years before it happened and said that the next major military conflict (war) would be between China and Russia. Interesting.
Not just Earth though...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 01:52 am (UTC)
There has been a marked increase in all inner planets of the solar system, not just earth but the global warming movement shouts it down and it isn't allowed the air to breath for people to understand it.

I agree that we need to change our lifestyles and stop dirtying up the planet but a lot of factions out there are looking at this as a means to tax us, or make money for themselves when it can still be down to partial natural causes.

This planet has been there before, even Ozone depletion has occurred before due to monstrous pollution when the earth had greater seismic and volcanic activity, an active pluming volcano can cause a lot more pollution than most people think and the earth healed itself given time.

I think the sun blows a safety valve which we have witnessed in the last decades as it got hotter, it gets to a peak then cools off somewhat.
A Reprieve
[info]slip_slidden wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 02:15 am (UTC)
If, indeed, we are entering another "Maunder Minimum", we have been granted a reprieve. One we may not deserve. Let's make full use of the opportunity to get our act together.
plant
[info]bho09 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 03:18 am (UTC)
At the first, thanks 4 this interesting article, it is like to be far from balance, like it is suggested from the increase of carbon dioxide...we are producing it more, the sun too, means changing of our possibility to be warmed and oxigenated ?shall i ask if there is a relation between this new little ice age and percentage of sea water?...i'm just thinking in my mind that is not so important the carbon dioxin but the process that it will allow during the photosintesis and so are impertant 4 our life the best equilibre that will mantain condition of life , i'm spaking about only like a few elements ( quantity of it) water,and CO2 are combined in all of us but there is a specific balance of both, and more...only plants can regenerate this balancing state we cannot naturally.At the end i will say...waiting maybe we could plant each of us one plant per year and offer it to the benevolence of Sun...
The Quiet Before the Storm?
[info]nuzenight wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 03:44 am (UTC)
Climate change due to greenhouse gasses is irrefutable. It may be that this quiet period would have a retardation effect on global warming but I wouldn't be inclined to go out and buy a fur coat but I do think flares will be in fashion very shortly. Let's hope they are manufacturing plenty of transformers for power stations in the meantime!
Re: The Quiet Before the Storm?
[info]bishbashbong wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 01:36 pm (UTC)
It is statements like this that are plainly rediculous.

IT IS REFUTABLE... you are just accepting what you are told without investigation. Climate Change due to greenhouse gasses is a mere theory that has NOT been proven. The fascists have declared the debate is OVER for Global Warming, so people like you can sit back and admire the Emperors New Clothes and ignore the massive pile of evidence that contradicts all the 'facts'.

To all sheep out there... How will increases in taxes cool the Earth down?
Re: The Quiet Before the Storm? - [info]nuzenight - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 05:35 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Quiet Before the Storm? - [info]colinru - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Common Sense at Last ?
[info]il_767 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 03:50 am (UTC)
"force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming. "


Most inconvenient when facts get in the way of PC isn't it ?

Maybe some common sense will start to now be evident instead of the lemming like chorus we've been hearing from Gore etc.
Climate models
[info]jl3793 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 04:10 am (UTC)
The important climate change models do incorporate the solar effects. It is just that the changes in solar output has been absolutely minor since satellite measurements were first made some 25 years ago. These solar inputs are being monitored and updated as further data and more precise solar, atmospheric and and geophysical relations are determined. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the effects of CO2 are much more important than changes in solar output in explaining the changes that are occurring in our planet's climate. One hopes that Whitehouse will contribute to the development of these climate models and the thinking on climate change. He does however, need to be prepared to suffer the rigors of scientific criticism of his proposals, thoughts, data, analysis and conclusions. One, of course, doesn't expect that in a paper for general readership. But it wouldn't be too much to ask to at least have had a reference to some of the published work in this field and in particular any papers that Whitehouse has published.
Re: Climate models
[info]john_levett wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC)
Could we have reference to some of the papers you've published in support of your CO2 opinion while we're at it? And as for the updating of data, I thought the 'science was settled'?
Re: Climate models - [info]jimjanja - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 03:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Climate models - [info]sara_sense - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC) Expand
God did it
[info]pw2232 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 04:42 am (UTC)
My children squabble not for on the subject of sunspots it is written:-

Revelations 16:8 "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire."

16:9 "And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory."

Which makes as much sense as the climate change disciples of The Goracle dismissing Solar influence, the earths albedo, the provable minimal impact of CO2 v H2O as a greenhouse gasses and other actual science. Of course now the politicians of the major economies sniff a new tax miracle, a tax with the amazing property that an increase is good, a tax that will have the taxpayers celebrating each increase as 'good for the planet' one can be assured of a river of gold for the global warming 'science' community and their clergy.

This is not to say we should continue to use our precious irreplacable and extraordinarily thin layer of atmosphere as a sewer for the waste of energy production; it is simply to say the simplistic preachings of the global warming evangelists and their mindless incantations should be held in the contempt due any false prophet.
Re: God did it
[info]nerderello wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:40 am (UTC)
so it's happening because god is cross?
Re: God did it - [info]pw2232 - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 11:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Elephant in the room
[info]potnoddle wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 04:54 am (UTC)
Solar activity has been the elephant in the room that environmental extremists, governments and the news media have been ignoring. I will be glad if at least we can have an open discussion, rather than bulling bigoted approach that we normally get.
fine reporting on facts of nature
[info]givemeabreak1 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 05:42 am (UTC)
Good to see a non-biased reporting on what we are all observing. The common sense view on nature is that the Earth's temperature is set by the Sun and modified by cloud cover, reflectance, etc. Scientists do not have a concensus on what controls climate, it is still a science without a theory. Once someone is brave enough to publish a theory of climate change that can be judged by their peers, then there might be a concensus if it is shown to be a correct hypothesis. This is how science works. We did away with inquisitions years ago - there is no accepted church or political digma that we must all bow down to.

Russian scientists predict a mini ice age starting in 2010 to 2012 lasting past 2050. Are they wrong? They base their hypothesis on theory that can be verified. I have yet to see a theory of climate change that I can judge and test. Even the so-called "computer models" are not available for inspection. Why? Because someone might see the errors and bugs in them.

Science ignores the wild-eyed cult members who scream their religious dogma at us. Just as Galileo did when he was urged to recant his scientific theories during the Inquisition.
Woe, woe and thrice woe.....or maybe not
[info]richleau wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 06:04 am (UTC)
Never thought I'd see the day when the seriously pro CO2 driven Indie, that has been predicting doom with a Cassandra like monotony, would print an article suggesting the Sun's lack of activity maybe significant.
Deary me, what are we to think now. I see articles of faith being heaved overboard, carbon dispensations suddenly worthless, the hymn book of doom sounding tuneless and the anger of the tribes rising as the high priests descend from the mountain having spoken to the computer (Deep Thought?) and deliver ten commandments of which only two are possibly right.
Sun down
[info]justagreenie wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 06:05 am (UTC)
What a very odd article this is. If the activity of the sun has been exceptionally (how does he know this, before sunspot records began?) low in recent years (how many, the author doesn't say) then this would have the effect, if any, of decreasing the average temperature of the atmosphere. So if there is an effect at all (and 0.1% variation is 0.1% variation, whatever the "absolute" measure is) it would be to slightly counteract the effect of CO2, the physics of which is incontrovertible. That is, the last few years would, if anything, have been slightly warmer. Or does he think greatly warmer? Whichever, the most you could conclude, when the sun's activity returns to normal, is that the rise and rise of Earth's temps as a result of greenhouse gases would resume even more strongly.

If it looks like denialism, and quacks like denialism, it usually is denialism, no matter how mildly it appears to be expressed (http://www.blognow.com.au/mrpickwick/Climate_change/).
Re: Sun down
[info]richleau wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 06:21 am (UTC)
Denialism...such an In word. We are talking science and as Karl Popper observed the difference between science and religion is that the former must be open to its theories being disproved. We are continually revising and if not reversing our understanding of the universe, yet with climate change anybody who disagrees even in the slightest is immediately treated as a heretic and candidate for burning.
Re: Sun down - [info]wanglese - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 06:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Sun down - [info]justagreenie - Monday, 27 April 2009 at 07:31 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Sun down - [info]colinru - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:59 pm (UTC) Expand
question for the scientists
[info]thelatimes wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 06:46 am (UTC)
Am I misunderstanding something, or shouldn't the absence of sunspots make the sun hotter and increase temperatures on earth?

Sunspots are darker than the uniform surface of the sun, so aren't they therefore cooler areas? It would seem logical that more sunspots would result in an overall slightly cooler sun. If not, can someone who really knows explain why?

One correction: "Faculae" isn't an Italian word, it's Latin.
Re: question for the scientists
[info]dd113 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
I think this answers your question (quote from the article)

Although at solar maxima there are more sunspots on the Sun s surface, their dimming effect is more than offset by the appearance of bright patches on the Sun s disc called faculae - Italian for little torches.
The missing sunspots
[info]pete_in_crete wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 07:11 am (UTC)
The activity of the sun waxes and wanes over an 11 year cycle with several other identifiable but smaller cycles superimposed on it over longer periods. In 1957 it was exceptionally active and again in the 80's. The sunspot count has a profound effect upon radio communication too and the last few years have been the quietest I can recall in 55 years as a radio amateur. I have been praying for in increased sunspot count but perhaps I have been selfish and ignored the heating effect. If it goes on for too long we may get really concerned about global cooling.
:-) bear with me
[info]sb_uk wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
sun's distance to galactic centre 26,000 +/- 1,400 light-years

- would take light ~ 26,000 years to travel from sun -> galactic centre

[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(astronomy)
In astronomy, precession refers to a gravity-induced slow but continuous change in an astronomical body's rotational axis or orbital path. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation, which, like a wobbling top, traces out a conical shape in a cycle of approximately 26,000 years.

- takes ~ 26,000 years for a precessionary cycle to complete.

[3]
... ... and evidence of religious relics and altars date back no earlier than 25,000 years.

speciation of man (with mind) ~ 26,000 years ago.

~*~

... ... ... more to follow.

:-)

(having a bad unicode moment)
The Sun and Co2
[info]fwdinsight wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
Astronomers have been saying for ages that the whole universe was heating up the same way as earth. The United Nations IPCC report ignored the embarrasing fact in History that although CO2 levels were higher in the 1700's than today the climate for that century was the COLDEST ON RECORD. CO2 is a tax for the New World Order, hence the carbon certificates. Over the protests of the astonomers who said the planets were beinghg heated by solar activity this lie was propounded by means of the IPCC report. The problem was that when eminent scientists saw that the facts about the 1700's being the coldest century on recotrd they insisted on withdrawing their names, because the report was no longer science but a flawed political document. So they never published it. Today we can see the results. Governments carry on with the myth and the Greens look more and more like Hitler's SS.
Re: The Sun and Co2
[info]richleau wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 10:37 am (UTC)
the IPCC is a political body. it debates the various sceintific data presented to it and then proposes a draft document, which itself is then refined and changed until several drafts later one is produced that the majority agree on. So there is horse trading on a par with an EU summit. it is hardly a scientific analysis as one might understand it, but a political agenda using science to back up its claims.
It is odd how so many people blithely accept predictions on climate change that are ten, twenty, or one hundred years ahead. Yet readily and sensibly question the economic and social predictions of the same politicians no more than five years ahead.
The greatest danger we face, is probably from humanity's well known ability to make a hash of things. After a thousand years of warfare culminating in two world wars within half a century, why oh why do we suddenly believe we are collectively an enlightened species with the planet's best interests at heart?
There is nothing in human history that should convince anyone that we are capable of such unity of purpose.
Those people who do believe in such a thing, are indulging in self-deception and wishful thinking, just as it is fanciful that the world should be run by a council of wise elders, church leaders and politicians. This last bit isn't my idea, it is actually a Tony Blair proposal, thankfully long forgotten.
mixed messages
[info]janvb1 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
please don't confuddle two different phenomena:

1. More greenhouse gasses trap more heat. This is known since Arrhenius' paper in 1896, and confirmed by all physical and climatological evidence after.

2. Less sunspots may mean a cooler earth.

So, a cooler sun might counteract the increasing greenhouse effect for a while. However, as soon as the sunspots reappear, global warming would return with a vengeance. Taking these observations as a reason to stop combating greenhouse gas emissions is a very risky bet on the idea that the sunspots will stay away forever (or at least as long as politicians are in office).
Look Out
[info]philg000 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
Good article but it misses the most important point. At some stage sunspot activity will return to the usual cyclic behaviour. If the recent low activity has been keeping the Earth's temperature steady, then when sunspots return we can expect a more rapid rise in global temperature as we catch up with the previous warming trend.

Most people reading this report will conclude that global warming is now less of a threat because the Sun's activity is more significant than many climatoligists had thought, but the Sun's activity is roughly cyclic and the underlying trend due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will dominate in the longer term. If the Sun's cooling persists much longer we will be lulled into a false sense of security that could ultimately be our downfall.
to the head-in-the-sand crew
[info]iwonder2 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
to the head-in-the-sanders a question - even if we use this as an excuse not to do anything about global warming - what happens when the sun's cycles return to a hotter phase ? - and we are left with a double whammy of a hotter sun & higher Carbon Dioxide... levels
Re: to the head-in-the-sand crew
[info]john_steel wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
If you want to look at independent research, in one handy place, go to the 'watts up with that' website.

If you just want to wallow in your own prejudice, why do you bother reading at all?

Among items on sunspots etc. you will see graphs e.g. of polar ice coverage, from sattelite data. Guess what - ice coverage is now at a *maximum*, not the minimum you hear about from those with an agenda.

Also, the Sun's change in % terms might be small, but then so is CO2's contribution - 95% of the global warming effect is from water vapour - over which we have no control - and of the remaining 5% the majority comes from natural sources, again something we have no control over.

The Maunder minimum, or little ice age, lasted well over a century.

Human reactivity
[info]drahcir38 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC)
It matters not an iota whether the earth is cooling, heating up or about to spin off into some new course, because whatever "scientists" and other geniuses tell us, our human nature tells us that it will only effect others and not us. That is the main reason why most people are to a large extent ignoring global warming, still travelling by car, air, and still carrying on much as they have for the past hundreds of years. So as a species, we are not good at being proactive and working as a unit for the "greater good".

What we are excellent at is being reactive, so when something happens we not only see stories of how individuals overcame adversity but also tales of how people helped each other during testing times. Unfortunately there isnt a single arguement in the world that is going to shift that way of thinking, and that is not saying that nobody cares about what happens to the earth but rather that is how we function as a species. Everything in the developed world is dependent on being able to travel long distances quickly (lots of shops and supermarkets are built miles away from town centres). People are encouraged to go see the world for themselves, and that means catching planes. Who is going to be able to prevent this from continuing by decreeing that people in general should stay in their locality? Major alterations in behaviour only happen as a reaction.
Re: Human reactivity
[info]fred_bear79 wrote:
Monday, 27 April 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
I agree with your comment drahcir38. I believe this is the 'problem' that needs to be tackled first. But of course it is the most difficult problem.
Fred Bear
Re: Human reactivity - [info]jomukuk - Tuesday, 28 April 2009 at 10:27 am (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 6
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] >>