Well, it's a good thing that the sun doesn't have anything to do with "global warming", eh? Otherwise, we might be heading into a cooling period. However, the current cooling phase is due to the La Nina which is an artifact of the increase in anthropogenic CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Right? That makes perfect sense to me, what with the perfect correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing, er...decreasing temperatures.

Solar cycle 24 began the first time on July 31, 2006.
http://www.spacew.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=d507e37d3a8e27a3ba2b18ad4ab32107&topic=744.msg3934#msg3934

And it is a big one.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

This is not good news! The radio frequency spectrum has been barren. I really wish this cycle would get kicking. So things warm up both temperature wise, and on the radio bands. The Maunder Minimum sadly appears to be upon us! Like I said, this is extremely disappointing because it had been predicted that this next cycle was going to be huge.

Some are predicting solar cycle #25 to be the quietest in centuries.

Mans contribution of .0087% atmospheric CO2 is INSIGNIFICANT when it comes to "radiating" heat. There are much greater forcings effecting our surface.

1. 70% is water.
2. 30% is land.
3. 27 million degrees is from the sun(give or take a few degrees)

You should start to get clear clues to what is actually "driving" our climate.

Hint: It's not 0.0087%

Keeping in line with sun spots, could someone please explain how this picture has nothing to do with changing our climate?

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/02/global_warming_to_the_extreme_1.html#comments

Quote: "would make solar cycle #23 one of the longest in over 100 years"

Longest in over 100 years? Obviously, humans are to blame, then. Something we've done since the Industrial Revolution has screwed up the Sun and if we don't do something and change our way of life right now, the Sun could be destroyed!

Brett, most solar scientists believe the solar cycle has only a slight effect on climate, and that long-term variations (as in the Maunder Minimum) don't do much more. As this site claims to take a "scientific" approach to climate, one wonders at your frequent use of non-scientific sources (e.g. Watts, Jansenns, Archibald) as regards solar trends. It's as if you don't understand the distinction between science and pseudo-science.

Remember the big solar science conference a couple of months ago? The one you didn't even mention here? I suppose it's very exciting to live in a world where one can imagine instead that at any moment now some change in the sun is going to have a large effect on climate. Science is boring by comparison.

Comment by 'Tom in Florida' on Watts site, LOL:

'NASA�s convened panel of scientists obviously missed their mark of consensus in predicting cycle 24 would start in March 2008.'

'According to Algorean science, consensus is always correct and this is just a case the Sun not being aware of it. Perhaps the IPCC should fine the Sun a couple of million Euros for it�s blatant disrespect of the scientists comprising the panel.'

Again, in my opinion, it is a far more reasonable proposition to presume the cooling will come about from natural sun cycles than warming will come about from a minuscule amount of CO2. If there is actually warming to speak of something else is driving it. I don't see anything other than natural cycles. #24 may actually turn out to be unnatural on the cooling side. No one knows for certain until we actually get there.

The environmentalists have tried for ages to get people to take notice of man's desecration of the environment. People did not take notice, thus the environmentalists had to come up with a scare tactic to save the world in spite of those inhabitating the world. NO one would argue that man has been a terrible steward of the worlds resources. We have far, far more pressing matters that are actually globally critical far exceeding the 'scare' and scam being perpetuated by the AGW Hysterics. The problem is that there is not the billions of dollars (euros) to be made in basic environmentalism as there is in wholesale changing the worlds basic existence.

Steve Bloom:

From the Russel Observatory Blog:

Solar minimum
November 14, 2007 � 2:59 pm

Part of the point of the Lowell blog is to make some research topics and results available and accessible to all our readers, so here goes. I and my colleagues study the activity of the Sun and Sun-like stars, to better understand how our star varies relative to its closest cousins and to contribute, from an astronomical perspective, to our understanding of the effects of solar variability on terrestrial climate. I will try to keep the blog up to date with the latest in various parts of the field, as well as provide some general information posts.

To start with the basics, we are presently pretty near dead minimum of the solar activity cycle, the periodic rise and fall in the level of sunspots, flares, prominences, and other manifestations of the Sun�s varying magnetic field.

Full Disk Sun, 2007 Nov 14Here�s a full-disk image of the Sun taken today by the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a satellite orbiting about a million miles from Earth, dedicated entirely to observations of the Sun. This image isn�t exactly thrilling; the Sun looks like a cue ball. This is because we�re right at the end of solar cycle 23, and few or no sunspots are visible on any given day. (Solar cycles are numbered consecutively; #1 was a fairly miscellaneous cycle in the 1750s.) We are expecting Cycle 24 to begin in early 2008. There are divergent predictions of the strength of the cycle, we but expect it will peak around early 2012.

We are interested in solar activity because as the cycle waxes and wanes, the overall brightness of the Sun rises and falls slightly, and it is then natural to wonder if the varying solar brightness impacts Earth�s climate. Well, to cut to the chase: it does. Key questions are by how much and how has the Sun varied historically, before instruments existed to take precision measurements of it?

Another question....how hard would it be for decreased solar output to reduce the temperature of the earth by 1 degree? umm...

You Hysterics, almost to a man, have said basically the same things on the last two topics. If nothing else, You've all got yer politics down pat...

"Mans contribution of .0087% atmospheric CO2"

Rich, why do you insist on using a percentage when you know it's wrong? CO2 has increased by nearly 40%, not 0.0087%.

An active solar cycle only increases solar irradiance by about 0.00073%, which is an even much smaller number than the made-up number you keep using for CO2.

Of course, irradiance has decreased since 1950 -- a convenient little factoid deniers never want to discuss -- and its correlation with temperatures has been horrendous post-1940.

Bloom,

Again with attacks on the moderator? You certainly are living up to your previously stated strategy of "denying a platform" to dissenters.

You must also find science boring as your typical comprehension of papers you cite combines equal part fact and equal part wishful fiction. This is aptly demonstrated by "most solar scientists believe the solar cycle has only a slight effect on climate, and that long-term variations (as in the Maunder Minimum) don't do much more".

Actually, most solar scientists are relatively agnostic on the issue of whether or not long-term variations have a significant impact on climate as the mechanics/impacts (if any) of such long-term variations are not well understood and there is to date no convincing evidence one way or the other. But I guess it is more exciting to make assertive rather than accurate statements.

If you don't care for the content here I suggest you spend more time over at Real Climate where they only print the news you want to hear. But I suppose that may be a problem as your poor understanding of the science (as demonstrated in your posts here and on RC) no doubt limits your contribution beyond that of cheerleading.

BTW - any news yet on that BC lag mechanism you invented to cover one of your previous mistakes?

PH keep[ those old pages they may be worth a bit of money in about 2 years (for journalists) LOL

Mr. Bloom,

Complaints to the blogmaster should be posted on the previous thread.

As this site claims to take a "scientific" approach to climate, one wonders at your frequent use of non-scientific sources...

I agree. Quit using sources like Hansen (who is definitely non-scientific), Gore (no comment), and other Soros-funded lackeys who manipulate the data to garner more funding.

Brett,

Maybe you get prior approval from Mr. Bloom, bt, NigelW, and/or Nick before posting. Obviously, you are not kowtowing to the Goracle by presenting alternative sources of material rather than from mainstream journals such as Science, Nature, etc.

Remember, the science is settled.

Patrick Henry,

The sunspot you are referring to on July 30, 2006 doesn't appear to be a Cycle 24 sunspot, but a slightly lower Cycle 23.

Here is the January 4, 2008 onset of Cycle 24. Apparently, Ulrich Rieth is the only one who thought that the earlier sunspot was the onset of Cycle 24

I couldn't help but copy this post from Tom in Florida in Anthony Watt's comment section for the above article:

"According to Algorean science, consensus is always correct and this is just a case the Sun not being aware of it. Perhaps the IPCC should fine the Sun a couple of million Euros for it's blatant disrespect of the scientists comprising the panel."

Steve Bloom

I am astonished by the arrogance of most of the AGW posters on this site.

I guess I'm the one that issued the "personal attack warning" so I'm the one who should be least surprised when they happen......... but still, it takes my breath away.

Could you perhaps post a link to a position statement of some organization of solar scientists that would support your claims as to what "MOST" solar scientists believe or don't believe?

Just wondering?

All the best.

Aaron

"Meanwhile, on March 25th, sunspot 989, the smallest of the three sunspots, unleashed an M2-class solar flare. Flares are measured on a "Richter scale" ranging from A-class (puny) to X-class (powerful). M-class flares are of medium intensity. This one hurled a coronal mass ejection or "CME" into space, but the billion-ton cloud missed Earth."

"The sun's rotation is turning the spots toward Earth, which means the next CME, if there is one, might not miss."

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/28mar_oldcycle.htm

"Steve Bloom:
It's as if you don't understand the distinction between science and pseudo-science."

uh oh when you can't discuss it, put them down

Steve you are such a hoot, someone should make you the poster boy speaker for global warming/climate change/global warming/climate change

I could not help buy notice on the NASA sun spot prediction graph
That starting in 2010 they had to make a unusually sharp upward increase in sun spot activity.

Stebe B:
You forgot to mention in your tirade the other pseudo science contributors:
Hansen, Mann, Schmidt, the whole IPCC.

Pseudo Science is the art of trying to prop up weak theories becasue your funding or reputation depends on it.

AGW is the best example.

Hi Paul,

It wasn't just Ulrich Rieth.

Sun's Next Stormy Cycle Starts
posted: 18 August 2006

Astronomers say the Sun has begun its next cycle of activity, part of an 11-year ebb and flow in sunspots and solar flares.

Solar activity is near the low point in the cycle now. Few sunspots appear and solar flares are rare. But on July 31, a tiny sunspot appeared and then vanished after a few hours. It was a normal event, except that it was magnetically backward.

"We've been waiting for this," said David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight in Huntsville, Alabama. "A backward sunspot is a sign that the next solar cycle is beginning."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060818_sun_cycle.html

I have corroborated the quiescent sun with my 236 power Tasco telescope with sun filter. Global cooling is upon us.

Brett, most solar scientists believe the solar cycle has only a slight effect on climate, and that long-term variations (as in the Maunder Minimum) don't do much more. Reply: Oiz, those are not my words. Brett

REPLY: Brett, if this is true, why then did we have a "Mini Ice Age" during the last Maunder Minimum (occured 17th & 18th centuries)? Is there no solid evidence to prove this possible correlation?

The Maunder Minimum. Further evidence that Glo-BULL Warming is a COLOSSAL CROCK!!!!!

Mark,

"Rich, why do you insist on using a percentage when you know it's wrong? CO2 has increased by nearly 40%, not 0.0087%."

Our atmosphere is made up of 0.0380% CO2. Since 1750, man has contributed approximately 0.0087% CO2.

Perhaps 0.0087% CO2 is effecting the amount of oxygen going to your brain? But to the rest of us, 0.0087% CO2 is insignificant and has no effects on the human body. How the hell could 0.0087% CO2 have "significant" effects on the planet, but have "zero" effects on us? Are we not a part of the biosphere? If the earth has a fever or is sick from 0.0087% CO2, shouldn't we be sick too?

Come on Mark, you are smarter than this. Think! 0.0087% CO2 is insignificant.

Maybe you get prior approval from Mr. Bloom, bt, NigelW, and/or Nick before posting.

HEY -- LEAVE ME OUT OF THIS!

I haven't even posted on this thread, I think the thread-starter is just fine, and I'm interested to see how the cycle 23/24 transition plays out -- regardless of its impact, or lack thereof, on the climate.

Speaking of which, will some of our more reasonable contrarians please offer a standard by which, in their opinion, we can measure the effect of the belated cycle 24? What climate changes do they expect, and when?

Interesting graph here-never saw this before..

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NHTRComp.html

Brett, most solar scientists believe the solar cycle has only a slight effect on climate, and that long-term variations (as in the Maunder Minimum) don't do much more.

Steve Bloom,

Uhhhhhh, BS! Most? Can you name a few? How about one?

Also, please provide their statement or better yet the study that led them to their conclusion.

Of course they cannot have received any money from "Big Climate Change" and to truly live up to AGW standards they must not have performed any tests that can be repeated but rather must have drawn their conclusions from models that were based on conjecture.

Is their some AGW course that I have missed out on that teaches one how to make wild, unverifiable, and/or false statements or is this something that one is born with?

"Most AGW advocates do not know a damn thing about science, they simply are followers because it makes them 'feel' important or needed when in fact they are neither. The rest are profiteers."

Has anyone found any tests that can be repeated that show CO2's role in GW?

Steve

In response to BT's question I offer the following:

I predict that within 20 years, NYC will be flooded and within 30, people will be eating people to survive.

OOP, wh,wh,what? Those are taken by others? My mistake, I take it back.

Seriously, I expect a small blip downward in temps over the next year or two. Depends upon when the cycle starts, if it is delayed further, the length of time of downward temps will increase.

Should provide some interesting data, too bad that all of the "smart", non oily, scientists have already proclaimed that the sun plays no role in warming and therefore will not even be looking into it since it is an apparent waste of their time.

Rich,

1) Make a small hole in a bucket.
2) Run a hose to the bucket.
3) Open the faucet so that the rate of water flowing through the hose into the bucket equals the rate of water leaking out through the hole.
4) Run a second hose to the bucket.
5) Open the faucet to the second hose so that the amount of water flowing through the second hose is a "miniscule" percentage of the water flowing through the first hose.

What will happen?