This may be well known to those who follow solar activity closely, but
this summary of a new paper on recent sunspot activity on The Register
was an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The regression line looks too steep to my eye though I dare say that's
an optical illusion and it's been calculated accurately enough. But
even so the regression line looks fairly sensitive and another year
with higher than expected sunspot activity might well lower the slope.

JGD

On 14/06/2011 18:12, prodata wrote:
This may be well known to those who follow solar activity closely, but
this summary of a new paper on recent sunspot activity on The Register
was an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The regression line looks too steep to my eye though I dare say that's
an optical illusion and it's been calculated accurately enough. But

From selective data.
The Register is not entirely reliable where denying AGW is concerned.

It is just about possible that the solar magnetic field is weakening
longer term and that could lead to no visible sunspots at all if it
falls too low, but it is far from certain. We are just on the rise of
sunspot activity at the moment and although this cycle is predicted to
be lower than the last one it is a long way from vanishing altogether.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

If we do enter a new cooler Maunder minimum it might buy us some time...

even so the regression line looks fairly sensitive and another year
with higher than expected sunspot activity might well lower the slope.

JGD

It almost certainly will.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:12:52 -0700, prodata wrote:

This may be well known to those who follow solar activity closely, but
this summary of a new paper on recent sunspot activity on The Register
was an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The regression line looks too steep to my eye though I dare say that's
an optical illusion and it's been calculated accurately enough. But even
so the regression line looks fairly sensitive and another year with
higher than expected sunspot activity might well lower the slope.

JGD

Seems like they're jumping the gun with this one. Yes, the sunspot cycle
is going into a weaker phase but it's far too early too fly into a panic
about "little ice-ages". The next max is due in 2013, but what happens in
periods of low sunspot activity is that the 11-year cycle grows longer,
expanding to 12-13 years. It's quite possible that we won't see the
maximum of this cycle until 2015. Let's not fly into a panic for a few
years yet.


--
Graham Davis, Bracknell, Berks. E-mail: change boy to man
To consider the Earth the only populated world in infinite space is as
absurd as to assert that in an entire field sown with millet only one
grain will grow. - Metrodoros, 300BC

On Jun 14, 6:29*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 14/06/2011 18:12, prodata wrote:

This may be well known to those who follow solar activity closely, but
this summary of a new paper on recent sunspot activity on The Register
was an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The regression line looks too steep to my eye though I dare say that's
an optical illusion and it's been calculated accurately enough. But

*From selective data.
The Register is not entirely reliable where denying AGW is concerned.

It is just about possible that the solar magnetic field is weakening
longer term and that could lead to no visible sunspots at all if it
falls too low, but it is far from certain. We are just on the rise of
sunspot activity at the moment and although this cycle is predicted to
be lower than the last one it is a long way from vanishing altogether.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

If we do enter a new cooler Maunder minimum it might buy us some time...

even so the regression line looks fairly sensitive and another year
with higher than expected sunspot activity might well lower the slope.

JGD

It almost certainly will.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I agree that if it happened, it might buy us time; no more. Although
the solar minimum between solar cycle 23 and solar cycle 24 was the
longest for over a century, we saw no cooling whatsoever. Indeed we
saw record global temperatures at the end of the extended solar
minimum in 2010 - year which also saw 6 months of La nina conditions
as well. The warming trend just appears to have overriden any possible
cooling from the theoretical increase in cosmic ray activity
(producing more clouds via more condensation nucei being created) or
from the reduced solar output.

On Jun 14, 9:39*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:29*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:





On 14/06/2011 18:12, prodata wrote:

This may be well known to those who follow solar activity closely, but
this summary of a new paper on recent sunspot activity on The Register
was an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The regression line looks too steep to my eye though I dare say that's
an optical illusion and it's been calculated accurately enough. But

*From selective data.
The Register is not entirely reliable where denying AGW is concerned.

It is just about possible that the solar magnetic field is weakening
longer term and that could lead to no visible sunspots at all if it
falls too low, but it is far from certain. We are just on the rise of
sunspot activity at the moment and although this cycle is predicted to
be lower than the last one it is a long way from vanishing altogether.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

If we do enter a new cooler Maunder minimum it might buy us some time....

even so the regression line looks fairly sensitive and another year
with higher than expected sunspot activity might well lower the slope..

JGD

It almost certainly will.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I agree that if it happened, it might buy us time; no more. Although
the solar minimum between solar cycle 23 and solar cycle 24 was the
longest for over a century, we saw no cooling whatsoever. Indeed we
saw record global temperatures at the end of the extended solar
minimum in 2010 - year which also saw 6 months of La nina conditions
as well. The warming trend just appears to have overriden any possible
cooling from the theoretical increase in cosmic ray activity
(producing more clouds via more condensation nucei being created) or
from the reduced solar output.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Blimey how ironic the AGW people will praising the nasty big oil
companies for letting the human population buy and use their product
and release C02 into the atmosphere.

Let's turn this on its head and say that Co2 might buy us time. As for
the "we've seen no cooling yet-despite" this is sensational and
worrying news, unless the empirical observations that started in 1603
of Suns spots disappearing and coinciding with a life shortening
severe cold spell is wrong-then we should be glad of Co2 and any
warming effect it may have,


For Nasa to now come out and admit that all is not going to forecast
and conceded that the sun trumps C02 everytime, is big news indeed.

On 15/06/2011 17:55, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Jun 14, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On Jun 14, 6:29 pm, Martin
wrote:





On 14/06/2011 18:12, prodata wrote:

This may be well known to those who follow solar activity closely, but
this summary of a new paper on recent sunspot activity on The Register
was an interesting read:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

The regression line looks too steep to my eye though I dare say that's
an optical illusion and it's been calculated accurately enough. But

From selective data.
The Register is not entirely reliable where denying AGW is concerned.

It is just about possible that the solar magnetic field is weakening
longer term and that could lead to no visible sunspots at all if it
falls too low, but it is far from certain. We are just on the rise of
sunspot activity at the moment and although this cycle is predicted to
be lower than the last one it is a long way from vanishing altogether.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

If we do enter a new cooler Maunder minimum it might buy us some time...

even so the regression line looks fairly sensitive and another year
with higher than expected sunspot activity might well lower the slope.

JGD

It almost certainly will.

Regards,
Martin Brown

I agree that if it happened, it might buy us time; no more. Although
the solar minimum between solar cycle 23 and solar cycle 24 was the
longest for over a century, we saw no cooling whatsoever. Indeed we
saw record global temperatures at the end of the extended solar
minimum in 2010 - year which also saw 6 months of La nina conditions
as well. The warming trend just appears to have overriden any possible
cooling from the theoretical increase in cosmic ray activity
(producing more clouds via more condensation nucei being created) or
from the reduced solar output.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Blimey how ironic the AGW people will praising the nasty big oil
companies for letting the human population buy and use their product
and release C02 into the atmosphere.

Let's turn this on its head and say that Co2 might buy us time. As for
the "we've seen no cooling yet-despite" this is sensational and
worrying news, unless the empirical observations that started in 1603
of Suns spots disappearing and coinciding with a life shortening
severe cold spell is wrong-then we should be glad of Co2 and any
warming effect it may have,

The sunspots are nothing like vanished yet.

Sunspot numbers are presently increasing and the sun getting more active
as part of the normal Hale cycle. Conjecture about *all* sunspots
vanishing for decades based on a short chunk of data taken out of
context is not at all convincing. Sunspot numbers are a bit down but
there are still a fair number of them as the NOAA graph shows.

For Nasa to now come out and admit that all is not going to forecast
and conceded that the sun trumps C02 everytime, is big news indeed.

The sun is known to vary slightly over the Hale cycle this is not news.
Paradoxically when the sun has lots of dark (ie cold) sunspots it emits
*more* power because there are also less obvious bright faculae which
are hotter, brighter and bigger but are much less obvious to a casual
observer.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Jun 14, 6:29*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:

*From selective data.
The Register is not entirely reliable where denying AGW is concerned.

Can I just pick up on this specific detail. AFAIK The Reg doesn't have
a 'house line' on any issue. The views expressed vary with the
contributor. I quite agree that any article on AGW by Andrew Orlowski
is highly suspect. But this particular one was by Lewis Page who tends
to be more factual and objective, albeit with a serious weakness for
fanciful neologisms.

JGD