Is cycle 24 stalling?

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,257
Reaction score
2,693
After a very slow start, cycle 24 seemed to be coming on for at least a modest showing but the sunspot numbers dropped in Dec and Jan - still consistent with projections on a smoothed basis, but a few days ago the Feb point was added to the chart and it's putting a dent in the smoothed curve.
sunspot.gif
 
Cherry Blossoms bloom in March and miss out on the late April Cherry Blossom festival. It appears to be the 100 year anniversary of the festival. Establshed in 1912 to correspond to the yearly seasonal bloom.
 
redrumloa said:
Maybe if we cut our carbon footprint and pay tributes to Obama's friends, we can lower sunspots.
Click to expand...
Sunspot numbers ARE lowering. The graph is lacking the most recent data for cycle 24.
As you know, carbon emissions have nothing to do with the sun spot numbers. They are independent - but both carbon emissions and sunspot activity (really a proxy for solar output) DO each affect the temperature of the earth as do ocean currents and ice cover. The only one that we have any control over is carbon - therefore it is the only one we can act on.

If we are driving down some mountain highway when we see up ahead a boulder that has fallen into the roadway we can shrug and say that we have no power over the mountain, gravity nor boulders and enjoy our last few moments marvelling at the feeling of speed, or we can act to modify the things we can control and try steering and or using the brakes.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Sunspot numbers ARE lowering. The graph is lacking the most recent data for cycle 24.
As you know, carbon emissions have nothing to do with the sun spot numbers. They are independent - but both carbon emissions and sunspot activity (really a proxy for solar output) DO each affect the temperature of the earth as do ocean currents and ice cover. The only one that we have any control over is carbon - therefore it is the only one we can act on.

If we are driving down some mountain highway when we see up ahead a boulder that has fallen into the roadway we can shrug and say that we have no power over the mountain, gravity nor boulders and enjoy our last few moments marvelling at the feeling of speed, or we can act to modify the things we can control and try steering and or using the brakes.
Click to expand...

CO2 is basically nothing to do with global warming, water vapor is a far bigger GHG yet it's impact is being ignored by the CO2 haters. What the Sun activity is doing, it either allows cosmic rays to hit the Earth or shields the Earth from cosmic rays via magnetic waves. More Sun activity, the stronger the magnet waves are protecting the Earth from cosmic rays which means less cloud cover is generated and more of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth surfaces, increasing global temperature. As the Sun declines in activity, that magnet wave that protects the Earth from cosmic rays weakens and declines away from the Earth allowing more cosmic rays to hit the Earth, more cloud cover is generated and decreasing global temperature. Now, this is being modified by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which means if there is increase in Sun spots during a time of El Nino, then it's going to be a spike in the Earth's temperature.

What we are now experiencing is the 200 year solar cycle call de Vries. It's a bit late actually, it should have happen in the 90s. Last time we had this back during the US' War of Independence. Got kinda cold at Valley Forge.
 
Dammy it seems you spend far too much time on Watts Up With That rather then understanding the actual science you take it from a anti-CO2 publicist. I may add giving credit to Cecilia's point.
 
Dammy said:
CO2 is basically nothing to do with global warming, water vapor is a far bigger GHG yet it's impact is being ignored by the CO2 haters.
Click to expand...
CO2 is one component of global warming and it is a long term component. Water vapour levels change quickly with temperature and we can't do anything about them. CO2 changes much more slowly and lasts longer and we make a significant contribution to it. When CO2 traps heat it means that the atmosphere warms and can hold more water vapour which can then trap more heat. Water vapour, which we can't control directly amplifies the effect of CO2 which we can partially influence.
What the Sun activity is doing [...]
Click to expand...
Yes, somewhat, but mostly to a smaller degree than CO2 and besides we can't do anything about the sun's activity - but we can do something about CO2. It is the height of childishness to keep blaming what you can't change and refusing to take responsibility for the things you can change. You can complain about how wet the rain makes you or you can open an umbrella.
 
faethor said:
Dammy it seems you spend far too much time on Watts Up With That rather then understanding the actual science you take it from a anti-CO2 publicist. I may add giving credit to Cecilia's point.
Click to expand...

Hey, AGW is just a scam to take control over individuals. I completely understand it.
 
Robert said:
If Jim were the one to pick you up on this comment, this is the point where he would say:
Click to expand...

That explains why we are at run away temperatures that were predicted back in the 1980s when CO2 PPM hit the current levels. :rolleyes:
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
CO2 is one component of global warming and it is a long term component. Water vapour levels change quickly with temperature and we can't do anything about them. CO2 changes much more slowly and lasts longer and we make a significant contribution to it. When CO2 traps heat it means that the atmosphere warms and can hold more water vapour which can then trap more heat. Water vapour, which we can't control directly amplifies the effect of CO2 which we can partially influence.

Yes, somewhat, but mostly to a smaller degree than CO2 and besides we can't do anything about the sun's activity - but we can do something about CO2. It is the height of childishness to keep blaming what you can't change and refusing to take responsibility for the things you can change. You can complain about how wet the rain makes you or you can open an umbrella.
Click to expand...

Pity the past 30 years hasn't proven your scam to be real.
 
Dammy said:
Pity the past 30 years hasn't proven your scam to be real.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't make a bit of difference if it had - the wilfully blind would just move the goalposts again, same as always.
 
Robert said:
Wouldn't make a bit of difference if it had - the wilfully blind would just move the goalposts again, same as always.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating that but it is the AGW scammers who keep moving the goal posts.
 
Dammy said:
Pity the past 30 years hasn't proven your scam to be real.
Click to expand...
So we are in agreement. The idea that AGW is a scam is untrue.
it's amazing though how many people are falling for the other scam - the one about AGW being just a tool for control - rather than massive energy companies monopolizing and keeping us dependent on their energy supply isn't a tool for control. The same techniques that are used to undermine the science of evolution are the same techniques used to undermine the science of AGW - FUD. The scientists are hogtied by their professional need to speak in probabilities and ranges of uncertainty which the other side shamelessly takes advantage of offering instead certainties even when their certainties directly contradict each other. AGW is a real phenomenon to a high degree of confidence but because it isn't fully parametrized those who don't understand how science is done feel free to reject it.
 
I agree with Fluffy here, if there's any scam going on it's by the huge energy corporations out there. Shame on you Red for being duped so easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top