Sunspots May Cause Climate Fluctuations

Harvard astrophysicist says recent cooler temps are a result of fewer
sunspots

Published On 4/14/2009 1:28:53 AM

By ERIC W. BAUM

Contributing Writer


Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according
to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center
for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory, who offered the
hypothesis in an interview with TG Daily, an online news source.

Although many climatologists have cited increases in carbon dioxide as the
primary cause of the temperature increases associated with global warming,
Soon maintained that solar radiation from sunspots also has a great effect.

“The sun is a great driving force to climate change,” Soon said in an
interview with The Crimson yesterday, adding that most observed climate data
could be explained by fluctuations in solar radiation.

Sunspots—pockets of magnetism on the sun’s surface—generate high levels of
energy, which then heat the Earth’s atmosphere.

Soon told TG Daily that the lack of additional energy resulting from a
decrease in sunspots is directly responsible for colder temperatures
experienced in recent years.

He said that, as of last week, there had been sunspots on only 11 days this
year, and there were only 99 days with visible sunspots last year—the
second-lowest total since 1911.

Brian F. Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor, acknowledged a connection
between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, but cited other
research showing that sunspots only account for an overall temperature
change of a tenth of a degree centigrade.

Farrell did acknowledge that there could have been larger temperature
effects caused by sunspots in the past.

“A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and
temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect
temperature,” Farrell said.

He cautioned that the link was “a hypothesis...[that] does not have firm
scientific grounding.”

But Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due
to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to
consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures.


http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=527650

"Ms. 2" wrote:

Sunspots May Cause Climate Fluctuations

Harvard astrophysicist says recent cooler temps are a result of fewer
sunspots
[snip]

If that were true then the Carbon Tax on Everything and Carbon Credit
indugences would be knowing felonious commissions of snowballing
global suicide. An advocate makes virtue of failure. The worse the
cure the better the treatment - and the more that is required.

"http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm"
middle, A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"

Hunger is due to weather, famine is due to politics.

--
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 14, 1:05 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

"http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm"
middle, A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"

From the NASA quote, "A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful
measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness
has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV
wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996."

Careful measurements, my ass. Careful measurements demand careful
reporting. A 0.1% variance in solar irradiance is "normal'. What is
happening is not "normal". What was meant (to be not disclosed) is
"that the sun's brightness has dropped by" 0.2% " at visible
wavelengths and" 6% "at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar
minimum of 1996."

On a Kevin scale the earth sits "normally" at 288 K. 0.2% * 288 K. =
0.576 K. The trouble with the alleged "geniuses" at NASA is that none
of them can do high school math.

Hunger is due to weather, famine is due to politics.

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

On Apr 14, 3:24*pm, wrote:
On Apr 14, 1:05 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

"http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm"
*middle, A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"

From the NASA quote, "A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful
measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness
has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV
wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996."

Careful measurements, my ass. Careful measurements demand careful
reporting. A 0.1% variance in solar irradiance is "normal'. What is
happening is not "normal". What was meant (to be not disclosed) is
"that the sun's brightness has dropped by" 0.2% " at visible
wavelengths and" *6% "at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar
minimum of 1996."

On a Kevin scale the earth sits "normally" at 288 K. 0.2% * 288 K. =
0.576 K. The trouble with the alleged "geniuses" at NASA is that none
of them can do high school math.

Hunger is due to weather, famine is due to politics.

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

All that counts is their job and benefits security, and they got that
nailed.

btw, at the peak of an ice age, roughly every 100,000 years, our sun
must have turned itself way the hell down by several percent. Neat
trick for such a massive ball of mostly hydrogen and some helium.

~ BG

On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 14, 1:05 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

"http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm"
middle, A 12-year low in solar "irradiance"

From the NASA quote, "A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful
measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness
has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm.... only 0.02% lower verses previous minimum..

P.S.. Most UV is absorbed in ozone layer.

wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996."

Careful measurements, my ass. Careful measurements demand careful
reporting. A 0.1% variance in solar irradiance is "normal'. What is
happening is not "normal". What was meant (to be not disclosed) is
"that the sun's brightness has dropped by" 0.2% " at visible

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^
verses 0.2%.. now how did that number change all by itself???

wavelengths and" 6% "at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar
minimum of 1996."

On a Kevin scale the earth sits "normally" at 288 K. 0.2% * 288 K. =
0.576 K. The trouble with the alleged "geniuses" at NASA is that none
of them can do high school math.

Wrong numbers.. Garbage in .. Garbage out.. end of story..

Variability is more like +- 0.5 watt/m^2 centered around 1366 watt/m^2
at the edge of earth's atmosphere.

Worse case, your math should start out using 0.07% + 0.02%.. or
0.09%.. but.. that's using the difference from the irradiance peak
instead of average..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

So the math should be .. 0.5w/1366w or 0.036% + 0.02% == 0.056%..

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/I...NCE/irrad.html