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.
"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.
As #23 spots aretiill more frequent than those of #24, expect another such month before this time next year.
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.
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 https://climatelab.com.au/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.
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.
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.
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.
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....