2015 hottest year ever, 15 of 16 hottest years since 2001...

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62. It cracks me up and I roll on the floor. And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.

You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler.

They weren't using the actual "global average temperature"?
That's weird.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Earth has an "energy imbalance"? What ever happened to thermodynamics?

More energy comes in to the earth than leaves the earth.

That's an energy imbalance.

Exactly why do you believe thermodynamics rules that out? Please explain your reasoning in detail for everyone.

That's a new thing, right

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62. It cracks me up and I roll on the floor. And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.

You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.

So NOAA can't measure temperature to the nearest 4F at 58F, is that what you're saying? They have a 7% MOE

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62. It cracks me up and I roll on the floor. And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.

You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler.

They weren't using the actual "global average temperature"?
That's weird.

See in 1997 NOAA read the temperatures, then they added 4F

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does anyone still doubt that people get paid to post AGW talking points here no matter how fucking stupid they may be?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Earth has an "energy imbalance"? What ever happened to thermodynamics?

More energy comes in to the earth than leaves the earth.

That's an energy imbalance.

Exactly why do you believe thermodynamics rules that out? Please explain your reasoning in detail for everyone.

More energy comes in, is that new?

I thought the oceans ate 93% of this "Excess heat"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62. It cracks me up and I roll on the floor. And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.

You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler.

They weren't using the actual "global average temperature"?
That's weird.

See in 1997 NOAA read the temperatures, then they added 4F

I wonder how much they added to the ocean?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62. It cracks me up and I roll on the floor. And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.

You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler.

They weren't using the actual "global average temperature"?
That's weird.

See in 1997 NOAA read the temperatures, then they added 4F

I wonder how much they added to the ocean?

Whatever they needed to make their numbers work

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why is it bogus?

There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

And another Cult member chimes in

Warming global
global warming

Settled science
science settled

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I agree it is funny that you believe 58>62. It cracks me up and I roll on the floor. And yet you still won't write 'in my opinion 58>62.

You and Frank keep lying by comparing temperatures from two different baselines. The source you point to even specifically tells you not to lie like that, but you still do it proudly.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler. Thus, you and frank are claiming that 58+ 4.3 = 62.3 < 62.

So, are you going to go to your grave chanting that 62.3 < 62?

And do you notice how nobody else is jumping on your fraud wagon? Some levels of fraud are just too brazen for the other deniers here, and you and Frank have surpassed those levels.

The 58 was taken from a baseline that was 4.3F cooler.

They weren't using the actual "global average temperature"?
That's weird.

That's what it's called "man-made global warming" it only exists after the data is fudged

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not going to answer the original question? If who ever you are using as a source isn't qualified to explain the information you are posting then your opinion is less than convincing.

Well there you go...

I am a certified meteorologist. I hold a Masters in Atmospheric Physics..

You are an ignorant fool.. Your opinion is crap, based on lies and failed models... And that I can say with 100% certainty..

You're an anonymous poster on a hyper-partisan discussion forum. There is absolutely no reason to believe you. And, even if you were, you are way out numbered.

Well.. why do you need to lie about warming?

This is the difference between the RAW unaltered data and your highly adjusted crap, from which you base all of your claims..

By the way, your outnumbered by about 70% of the population, which thinks this is all a lie and a scam.. The empirical evidence bears this out.

Sorry, if you can't even cite a valid source, what do you want me to do?

Just give me a trusted source that isn't part of some wingnut group, not full of conspiracy nuts and not paid by the oil industry.

Answer my empirical evidence post. Show me where CO2 can be attributed to any of the warming.. And how you ascertained this. Please post your math, methods, and data with which you made these conclusions... I'll wait..

Yeah, you're a scientist allright. There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The better question is why wouldn't CO2 be attributed to any warming?
Set us right professor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

194 nations agreed that climate change is a problem, one that all of us have to address. People like Silly Billy and Mr. Westwall simply don't count anymore.

wrong, 194 individuals out of 7 billion, not good odds

NATIONS, idiot.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no empirical data to support the claims. It's all based on "projections" of dubious credibility. First off, the temperature records have been shown to be less than accurate or credible. Second, they are only looking at selected countries. When you look at total crop production, what do you see? You see steady increases year-by-year.

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

There's no argument; the dilatory efforts of oil and coal producers, purveyors and the propagandists, those who put profit before people, and the air they breath, the water they drink, the soil they cultivate, and our great oceans, is obvious to the world.

The New Right (Anarcho-Capitlaists) ruck choose to believe those who have a conflict of interest, and to accuse the Scientists who accept grant money to study the issues of having a conflict of interests.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:

news.nationalgeographic.com
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.

What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.


Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
Sunspots Losing Strength
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
Quiet Sun Exciting for Science
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."

© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.

Totally retarded thinking by the poster. Please professor, draw us the link between sunspots and how the sun warms the Earth. Then explain how and why a decrease in sunspots negate the greenhouse effect.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:

news.nationalgeographic.com
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.

What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.


Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
Sunspots Losing Strength
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
Quiet Sun Exciting for Science
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."

© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.

Your link says global warming is a problem.

You guys are just pranking, right? People can't be this fucking stupid.

On the sun... Global warming is a problem.... your a fucking idiot..

Enlighten us professor. How and why does a decrease of sunspot activity effect how the sun warms the Earth and it's impact on greenhouse gasses.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:

news.nationalgeographic.com
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.

What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.


Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
Sunspots Losing Strength
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
Quiet Sun Exciting for Science
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."

© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.

I love it.. NG tells us about the sun going quiet and cold. Then puts in its obligatory rant about CAGW, which doesn't exist. Ms Jaggard is a known alarmist and she insists on her crap even when she is reporting on a potential LIA or Younger-Dryas event. Talk about propagandists.. Do they know how stupid they look when they do this shit?

I love it.. NG tells us about the sun going quiet and cold.

Where does it say it's going "cold", professor? Whay does that mean to the greenhouse effect?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well there you go...

I am a certified meteorologist. I hold a Masters in Atmospheric Physics..

You are an ignorant fool.. Your opinion is crap, based on lies and failed models... And that I can say with 100% certainty..

You're an anonymous poster on a hyper-partisan discussion forum. There is absolutely no reason to believe you. And, even if you were, you are way out numbered.

Well.. why do you need to lie about warming?

This is the difference between the RAW unaltered data and your highly adjusted crap, from which you base all of your claims..

By the way, your outnumbered by about 70% of the population, which thinks this is all a lie and a scam.. The empirical evidence bears this out.

Sorry, if you can't even cite a valid source, what do you want me to do?

Just give me a trusted source that isn't part of some wingnut group, not full of conspiracy nuts and not paid by the oil industry.

Answer my empirical evidence post. Show me where CO2 can be attributed to any of the warming.. And how you ascertained this. Please post your math, methods, and data with which you made these conclusions... I'll wait..

Yeah, you're a scientist allright. There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The better question is why wouldn't CO2 be attributed to any warming?
Set us right professor.

How many trillions should we spend to ensure climate never changes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nobody said there weren't increases in crop production. You're really missing the point It's a complicated world and simply posting charts without any context around them isn't an argument. So, go back to wherever you got those and ask that source what crop production would look like without climate change. Otherwise your little charts aren't worth shit.

"It would have been better without global warming" is the kind of claim Obama makes about the economy. It's an absolute bullshit claim. Yeah, it's a complex world, which is why such claims are almost always bullshit.

Scientists out weigh your opinion.

No they don't. The only thing that outweighs opinion is fact. You haven't produced any.

The fact that American conservatives are the only group left on the planet who still denies the science is all the fact that is required. The last and arguably the dumbest rubes on the planet.

There's no argument; the dilatory efforts of oil and coal producers, purveyors and the propagandists, those who put profit before people, and the air they breath, the water they drink, the soil they cultivate, and our great oceans, is obvious to the world.

The New Right (Anarcho-Capitlaists) ruck choose to believe those who have a conflict of interest, and to accuse the Scientists who accept grant money to study the issues of having a conflict of interests.

Can you please explain why NOAA decided to alter the temperature of 1997 which at 62F puts it a solid 4F above the 2015 "record"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's the hard truth the leftist wacko media refuses to tell the public:

news.nationalgeographic.com
Sun Headed Into Hibernation, Solar Studies Predicts

By Victoria Jaggard, National Geographic News
Sunspots may disappear altogether in next cycle.

What a quiet sun looks like: Very few active regions are visible in this 2009 satellite picture.


Image courtesy STEREO/NASA
Enjoy our stormy sun while it lasts. When our star drops out of its latest sunspot activity cycle, the sun is most likely going into hibernation, scientists announced today.
Three independent studies of the sun's insides, surface, and upper atmosphere all predict that the next solar cycle will be significantly delayed—if it happens at all. Normally, the next cycle would be expected to start roughly around 2020.
The combined data indicate that we may soon be headed into what's known as a grand minimum, a period of unusually low solar activity.
The predicted solar "sleep" is being compared to the last grand minimum on record, which occurred between 1645 and 1715.
Known as the Maunder Minimum, the roughly 70-year period coincided with the coldest spell of the Little Ice Age, when European canals regularly froze solid and Alpine glaciers encroached on mountain villages.
(See "Sun Oddly Quiet—Hints at Next 'Little Ice Age?'")
"We have some interesting hints that solar activity is associated with climate, but we don't understand the association," said Dean Pesnell, project scientist for NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO).
Also, even if there is a climate link, Pesnell doesn't think another grand minimum is likely to trigger a cold snap.
"With what's happening in current times—we've added considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," said Pesnell, who wasn't involved in the suite of new sun studies.
"I don't think you'd see the same cooling effects today if the sun went into another Maunder Minimum-type behavior."
Sunspots Losing Strength
Sunspots are cool, dark blemishes visible on the sun's surface that indicate regions of intense magnetic activity.
For centuries scientists have been using sunspots—some of which can be wider than Earth—to track the sun's magnetic highs and lows.
(See the sharpest pictures yet of sunspots snapped in visible light.)
For instance, 17th-century astronomers Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini separately tracked sunspots and noticed a lack of activity during the Maunder Minimum.
In the 1800s scientists recognized that sunspots come and go on a regular cycle that lasts about 11 years. We're now in Solar Cycle 24, heading for a maximum in the sun's activity sometime in 2013.
Recently, the National Solar Observatory's Matt Penn and colleagues analyzed more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak, Arizona.
They noticed a long-term trend of sunspot weakening, and if the trend continues, the sun's magnetic field won't be strong enough to produce sunspots during Solar Cycle 25, Penn and colleagues predict.
"The dark spots are getting brighter," Penn said today during a press briefing. Based on their data, the team predicts that, by the time it's over, the current solar cycle will have been "half as strong as Cycle 23, and the next cycle may have no sunspots at all."
(Related: "Sunspot Cycles—Deciphering the Butterfly Pattern.")
Sun's "Jet Streams," Coronal Rush Also Sluggish
Separately, the National Solar Observatory's Frank Hill and colleagues have been monitoring solar cycles via a technique called helioseismology. This method uses surface vibrations caused by acoustic waves inside the star to map interior structure.
Specifically, Hill and colleagues have been tracking buried "jet streams" encircling the sun called torsional oscillations. These bands of flowing material first appear near the sun's poles and migrate toward the equator. The bands are thought to play a role in generating the sun's magnetic field.
(Related: "Sunspot Delay Due to Sluggish Solar 'Jet Stream?'")
Sunspots tend to occur along the pathways of these subsurface bands, and the sun generally becomes more active as the bands near its equator, so they act as good indicators for the timing of solar cycles.
"The torsional oscillation ... pattern for Solar Cycle 24 first appeared in 1997," Hill said today during the press briefing. "That means the flow for Cycle 25 should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but it has not shown up yet."
According to Hill, their data suggest that the start of Solar Cycle 25 may be delayed until 2022—about two years late—or the cycle may simply not happen.
Adding to the evidence, Richard Altrock, manager of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program for the National Solar Observatory (NSO), has observed telltale changes in a magnetic phenomenon in the sun's corona—its faint upper atmosphere.
Known as the rush to the poles, the rapid poleward movement of magnetic features in the corona has been linked to an increase in sunspot activity, with a solar cycle hitting its maximum around the time the features reach about 76 degrees latitude north and south of the sun's equator.
The rush to the poles is also linked to the sun "sweeping away" the magnetic field associated with a given solar cycle, making way for a new magnetic field and a new round of sunspot activity.
This time, however, the rush to the poles is more of a crawl, which means we could be headed toward a very weak solar maximum in 2013—and it may delay or even prevent the start of the next solar cycle.
Quiet Sun Exciting for Science
Taken together, the three lines of evidence strongly hint that Solar Cycle 25 may be a bust, the scientists said today during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
But a solar lull is no cause for alarm, NSO's Hill said: "It's happened before, and life seems to go on. I'm not concerned but excited."
In many ways a lack of magnetic activity is a boon for science. Strong solar storms can emit blasts of charged particles that interfere with radio communications, disrupt power grids, and can even put excess drag on orbiting satellites.
"Drag is important for people like me at NASA," SDO's Pesnell said, "because we like to keep our satellites in space."
What's more, a decrease in sunspots doesn't necessarily mean a drop in other solar features such as prominences, which can produce aurora-triggering coronal mass ejections. In fact, records show that auroras continued to appear on a regular basis even during the Maunder Minimum, Pesnell said.
(See "Solar Flare Sparks Biggest Eruption Ever Seen on Sun.")
Instead, he said, the unusual changes to the sun's activity cycles offer an unprecedented opportunity for scientists to test theories about how the sun makes and destroys its magnetic field.
"Right now we have so many sun-watching satellites and advanced ground-based observatories ready to spring into action," Pesnell said. "If the sun is going to do something different, this is a great time for it to happen."

© 1996-2016 National Geographic Society.

Totally retarded thinking by the poster. Please professor, draw us the link between sunspots and how the sun warms the Earth. Then explain how and why a decrease in sunspots negate the greenhouse effect.

^ outs himself as a sock