Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

By Rick C. Hodgin
Friday, April 10, 2009 13:12

Boston (MA) - Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has
seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is
currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The
sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And
that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less
sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes
2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the
same.

As of today, there have been 15 days in a row without any sunspots. In 2008
there were 266 days scattered throughout the year without sunspots, and in
2007 there were 163 days without sunspots. These are the #2 and #9 fewest
sunspots years seen since 1911.

Dr. Soon's field of specialty is the sun. He explains that sunspots are
planet-sized pockets of magnetism with much greater energy output and matter
expulsion, some of which strikes the Earth's atmosphere as extra energy from
the sun. He says when sunspots are present, the temperature goes up, when
they are not present the temperature goes down. He also told a reporter at
WBZ, CBS TV 38 (in Boston, MA) that beginning in 1645 and continuing through
1715, there were no observed sunspots. This is the period known as the
Little Ice Age.

He also explains that sunspots go in cycles, which are around 11 years.
There are periods of maximum activity (called the Solar Max) and periods of
minimal or no activity (called the Solar Min).

Around the year 2000, the current cycle had reached its maximum. As of right
now in 2009, it is at a period of zero sunspot activity. Still, he explains
that no one knows for sure how long the cycles will last, and there are
precedents that sunspots can persist for long periods of time, or there can
be few or none for long periods of time (as happened between 1645 and 1715
during the Little Ice Age).

So far in 2009, the sun has had no sunspots for 88 out of the 99 days so far
this year. Dr. Soon calls what we are seeing "the first deep solar minimum
of the space age", and "In fact, this is the quietest [fewest sunspots] Sun
we have had in almost a century".

In a separate video interview, he explains some possible scenarios which
align with global temperature changes relating to sunspot activity, as the
increased or decreased energy output from the sun affects the Earth's
climate.

He explains in that interview:

"When the energy input to the Earth from the sun is lower, you can easily
imagine then what the first effect would be -- heating less of the ocean's
surface. This promotes less evaporation of water vapor from the ocean,
reducing what we all know to be the major green house gas, water vapor, in
contrast to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Then, you would say that if the sun
provides less energy to warm the ocean's surface, and there is less of this
water vapor and less of the water vapor greenhouse effect, then the Earth
begins warming less so than you would normally have during the normal
sunspot activity maximum when the sun gives off more light-energy to the
planetary system.

"The second way to think about this is if the sun is giving less light to
the ocean's surface, then you will also give less energy to transfer the
heat, or even the material itself, from the surface to the upper atmosphere.
The connection between the surface and the upper atmosphere is less than it
would be, including the circulation patterns of the weather and the oceans.

"And then one can think about it another way, if you give less energy to
transfer energy from the surface to higher up in the atmosphere, as high as
5 or 8 kilometers, then the chance for the system to produce these so-called
thin high-cirrus clouds is less. These are the clouds that are very, very
effective as a greenhouse blocker, these thin high-cirrus clouds. This is
the idea that Professor Dickenson from MIT has suggested, that the Earth
system may act like an iris. If it's too warm, then the iris opens, if it's
too cold it closes, so that this fixture can trap heat, providing a very
efficient way to warm or cool the Earth system.

"During a solar activity minimum, imagine that you produce less of these
high-cirrus clouds, then the ability of the Earth to shed heat itself is a
lot easier, therefore the system cools. And then continuing, when you don't
have enough energy to bring all of this water vapor and the currents more
than a few kilometers up, then it all accumulates at the bottom of the
system, producing more of the low clouds. And on low clouds we know that
they are very effective at reflecting sunlight. So again, it's another way
that the Earth system can cool.

"And even another way to think about it is less energy intercepted in the
tropical region, from say 20 or 30 degrees north and south latitudes, then
you are able to transfer less heat energy to the polar regions, resulting in
the arctic regions getting slightly cooler in that sense as well.

"So these are some of the possible scenarios that we've reached which in
sort of a low-sunlight scenario would affect the Earth's weather."

Dr. Soon is an astrophysicist whose field of expertise is the sun for
Harvard and the Smithsonian. He said, "The Sun is the all encompassing
energy giver to life on planet Earth." And presently it's getting a lot of
attention from scientists. He expects that if 2009 is another cold year
which correlates to the decreased sunspot activity, that the global warming
theories which attribute temperature fluctuations to increases in the levels
of atmospheric CO2 will need to take notice.

He says, "If this deep solar minimum continues and our planet cools while
CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very
telling time and it's very, very useful in terms of science and society in
my opinion".

Mike Vandeman wrote:

Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change

By Rick C. Hodgin
Friday, April 10, 2009 13:12

Boston (MA) - Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon tells us that Earth has
seen a reduced level of sunspot activity for the past 18 months, and is
currently at the lowest levels seen in almost a century. Dr. Soon says "The
sun is just slightly dimmer and has been for about the last 18 months. And
that is because there are very few sunspots." He says when the sun has less
sunspots, it gives off less energy, and the Earth tends to cool. He notes
2008 was a cold year for this very reason, and that 2009 may be cold for the
same.
[snip]

If Global Warming were not anthropogenic, the Carbon Tax on Everything
and Carbon Credit indulgences would be massive frauds imposed by
jackbooted State compassion. Are you going to believe what you see or
what you are Officially told?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Apr 11, 11:11 am, Uncle Al wrote:

If Global Warming were not anthropogenic, the Carbon Tax on Everything
and Carbon Credit indulgences would be massive frauds imposed by
jackbooted State compassion. Are you going to believe what you see or
what you are Officially told?

Come on Al, many are professional scientists here and the rest are at
minimum educated science fans, so we all believe what we see... once
we are Officially told it's OK to do so.

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 11:11 am, Uncle Al wrote:

If Global Warming were not anthropogenic, the Carbon Tax on Everything
and Carbon Credit indulgences would be massive frauds imposed by
jackbooted State compassion. Are you going to believe what you see or
what you are Officially told?

Come on Al, many are professional scientists here and the rest are at
minimum educated science fans, so we all believe what we see... once
we are Officially told it's OK to do so.

No Lorentz violation.
Idiot.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate
change

Well only until about 1975..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from
Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60
years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found
temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar
activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose
while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these
last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray
flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most
recent warming episode must have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded
the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that
establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the
past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:02:36 +0100, Cwatters wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate
change

Well only until about 1975..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...nspots-global-
warming.htm

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from
Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last
60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also
found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between
solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point,
temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to
conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar
UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular
trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have
another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually
concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the
evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's
temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global
warming today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif


Two problems: Solar activity wasn't steady(1). It reached a peak in the
1990s and is now at a minimum, which is why it was so damned cold last
winter. So that is simply a lie.

Second problem is the solar spectral irradiance argument is a blatant red
herring fallacy and anyone who falls for it should be stripped of their
degrees and their colleges put on trial for being a diploma mill.

What was said is that there is STRONG correlation between solar activity
and climate change; a much stronger correlation than between CO2 and
climate change. Svensmark showed how it works.

The solar wind acts to protect the solar system from cosmic rays. Cosmic
rays that reach the lower atmosphere act to nucleate cloud formations.
Clouds reflect sunlight, and the reflected sunlight causes cooling.

Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument, Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion years of
climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even have a
hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models" that were
fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last decade of
non-warming. When REAL scientist see that a hypothesis fails to predict,
they ditch the theory. Not these IPCC funded guys! They keep using red
herring fallacies and scare tactics.

(1) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5guAhyObk2E4CfjHAda1Fi4wRraRQD97AIOB00

--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument, Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion years of
climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even have a
hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models" that were
fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last decade of
non-warming.

I guess you haven't heard they attribute that to La Nina...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786060.stm

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:41:57 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:02:36 +0100, Cwatters wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate
change
Well only until about 1975..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...nspots-global-
warming.htm
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists
from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in
the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005).
They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between
solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point,
temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to
conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar
UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant
secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must
have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually
concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the
evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's
temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global
warming today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif


Two problems: Solar activity wasn't steady(1). It reached a peak in the
1990s and is now at a minimum, which is why it was so damned cold last
winter. So that is simply a lie.

There is little correlation between winter temperatures and solar
minima in this century.

Well, Svensmark shows 4.5 billion years of correlation.

The whole IPCC hockey stick fraud was an attempt to fool people into
thinking that the solar correlation was broken in the late 1990s.

Second problem is the solar spectral irradiance argument is a blatant
red herring fallacy and anyone who falls for it should be stripped of
their degrees and their colleges put on trial for being a diploma mill.

See: "Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Cli...limateVol1.pdf

and

Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...802.4324v1.pdf

Do you even have an argument? I can post links to papers too, but that
doesn't say anything.

What was said is that there is STRONG correlation between solar
activity and climate change; a much stronger correlation than between
CO2 and climate change. Svensmark showed how it works.

The solar wind acts to protect the solar system from cosmic rays.
Cosmic rays that reach the lower atmosphere act to nucleate cloud
formations.

Much stronger correlation between cosmic rays an lightning
initiation.

Nice, but irrelevant.

Clouds reflect sunlight, and the reflected sunlight causes cooling.

Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument,
Svensmark theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5
billion years of climate data.

4.5 billion years of climate data does not exist. "Anyone who falls
for it should be stripped of their degrees and their colleges put on
trial for being a diploma mill".

Yes, it does.
http://www.space.dtu.dk/Medarbejdere.aspx?
lg=showcommon&type=publications&id=38287

http://www.space.dtu.dk/Medarbejdere...mmon&id=205070

The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even have a
hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models" that were
fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last decade of
non-warming. When REAL scientist see that a hypothesis fails to
predict, they ditch the theory. Not these IPCC funded guys! They keep
using red herring fallacies and scare tactics.

Whether one has a PhD or two or not. Learning is for life. Here are
some resources to do a bit of self education:
http://edu-observatory.org/cfs/Globa...Resources.html

Yes, somewhere in that gibberish.

Sadly, there is no published paper they can point to that proves their
debunked hypothesis.



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:38:01 +0100, Cwatters wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
...
Unlike the CO2 theory and the red herring irradiance argument,
Svensmark
theory SHOULD work, and it shows good agreement with 4.5 billion years
of climate data. The Anthropogenic Global warming people don't even
have a hypothesis anymo all their much vaunted "computer models"
that were fabricated by simple curve fitting failed to predict the last
decade of non-warming.

I guess you haven't heard they attribute that to La Nina...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786060.stm

And what causes "La Nina"? Your argument is circular. I point out that we
are at a solar minimum and thus, by Svensmark's theory, the climate
should be colder.

The first guy denies that it was colder.

You admit it's colder but attribute the colder climate to the ... climate.

You guys are not logical. No wonder you believe this stuff.



--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:21:28 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:41:57 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:02:36 +0100, Cwatters wrote:

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global
climate change
Well only until about 1975..

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...nspots-global-
warming.htm
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists
from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in
the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin
2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar
activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between
solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point,
temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them
to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance,
solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any
significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming
episode must have another source."

You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually
concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the
evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the
Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness
for global warming today.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

Two problems: Solar activity wasn't steady(1). It reached a peak in
the 1990s and is now at a minimum, which is why it was so damned cold
last winter. So that is simply a lie.
There is little correlation between winter temperatures and solar
minima in this century.

Well, Svensmark shows 4.5 billion years of correlation.


Why don't you judge for yourself, whether that makes any sense?

Let's judge:
Anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis: Based on science that says it
can't work. Brief period of correlation during the 1990s. Used Curve
fitting to make pre determined conclusion fit their hypothesis. Fails to
predict.

Svensmark Theory: based on science that says it should work. Has 4.5
billion years of agreement. Predicted last 10 years as well.

Unbaised judgment: Svensmark's theory.

The whole IPCC hockey stick fraud was an attempt to fool people into
thinking that the solar correlation was broken in the late 1990s.

You appear to have some strong biases.

Let's see... Some Danish group publishes a paper that says that Solar
cycle and climate change is strongly correlated, much more strongly
correlated than CO2.

Advocates of AGW claim that there was a dramatic increase in Global
temperature that breaks the correlation found by the Danish group.

Danish group recants.

But people note that upper atmosphere data doesn't agree with the AGWs.
They study the AGW claim of dramatic increase and find: The data included
data from areas that once were rural but now are urban heat islands. When
the urban heat islands were removed, once again follows the Danish groups
correlation with solar cycle. The inclusion of UHI was either gross
stupidity, or outright fraud.


--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization