A Sun with no sunspots

[Old Rocks]

Chris, I need help understanding this. Hopefully you won't flee like OR.

What does this mean for the climate?

Well, dumb ass Franky, it means that it will not be as warm as it would have been had we the normal sunspot cycle. However, even with the low solar activity and reduced TSI, plus a record low La Nina, the global temperature barely dipped below the zero mark for this year. And, as the temperature is rapidly ratcheting up again, the median, by Dr. Spencer's figures, lowest point will be higher than the previous high points excepting 1998. And we tied that high point median last year.

There ain't gonna be a cooling trend, folks. Just warming at a lower rate than would otherwise have been the case. And when the normal cycle resumes, one hell of a spike in temperatures and consequences of those temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wow! A bunch of spots located in cities!

Great data set.

I see. Are you stating that Oakland is rural?

 

[syrenn]

The fact that we are still seeing record heat in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years is proof of just how powerful AGW is.

Imagine that. We puny humans have power over the sun.

 

[uscitizen]

bad news for anyone that defends global warming as this will reduce the warming as this is a weak max. The cooling effect is when you string together mins and maxs. This really sucks for the warmers.

Yaah until the sunspots come back and then the earth will warm up with a vengance.

So we should be in a cooling trend now because of the lack of sunspots?

You do have reading comprehension problems don't you?
Look up the word "moderated". Then re-read my posts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Egad, Syrene, what a silly bitch you are pretending to be.

 

[syrenn]

Egad, Syrene, what a silly bitch you are pretending to be.

You will ruin my bad ass image saying stuff like that, old rocks!




It still remains.... the sun has no spots. Did we humans do something to the sun? If anyone thinks so, they are rather arrogant in assuming we have such power.


I maintain.... hot, warm, cold.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Chris, I need help understanding this. Hopefully you won't flee like OR.

What does this mean for the climate?

Well, dumb ass Franky, it means that it will not be as warm as it would have been had we the normal sunspot cycle. However, even with the low solar activity and reduced TSI, plus a record low La Nina, the global temperature barely dipped below the zero mark for this year. And, as the temperature is rapidly ratcheting up again, the median, by Dr. Spencer's figures, lowest point will be higher than the previous high points excepting 1998. And we tied that high point median last year.

There ain't gonna be a cooling trend, folks. Just warming at a lower rate than would otherwise have been the case. And when the normal cycle resumes, one hell of a spike in temperatures and consequences of those temperatures.

But the climate cooled last time we had no sunspots, right?

 

[KissMy]

Yaah until the sunspots come back and then the earth will warm up with a vengance.

So we should be in a cooling trend now because of the lack of sunspots?

Or a warming trend moderated by the lack of sunspot activity.
that is my theory on it.

The Solar Flares have been causing all the planets to heat up.

3/10/2011 - Boom! Sun unleashes yet another huge solar flare

 

[Two Thumbs]

Actually, as much as I'd like to grandstand on the warmers about the spots.

This is going to suck and suck a lot.

Warming leads to us having more liquid water. It we over warmed there would be flooding on the coasts, and it would suck to be them.

If we cool, our liquid water turns to ice and we start having droughts, and much shorter growing periods for food. Now these 2 things will lead us to start dying off or killing each other.

This is not funny, this is deathly serious.

 

[Old Rocks]

Egad, Syrene, what a silly bitch you are pretending to be.

You will ruin my bad ass image saying stuff like that, old rocks!




It still remains.... the sun has no spots. Did we humans do something to the sun? If anyone thinks so, they are rather arrogant in assuming we have such power.


I maintain.... hot, warm, cold.

Syrene, what is wrong with your reading comprehension? Do you understand what Total Solar Irradiance is? And where do you think that anyone has stated that we are influencing the sun? Quite on the contrary, what is being stated is that the reduction in the TSI from the lack of solar sunspot activity is now moderating the effect of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Egad, Syrene, what a silly bitch you are pretending to be.

You will ruin my bad ass image saying stuff like that, old rocks!




It still remains.... the sun has no spots. Did we humans do something to the sun? If anyone thinks so, they are rather arrogant in assuming we have such power.


I maintain.... hot, warm, cold.

Syrene, what is wrong with your reading comprehension? Do you understand what Total Solar Irradiance is? And where do you think that anyone has stated that we are influencing the sun? Quite on the contrary, what is being stated is that the reduction in the TSI from the lack of solar sunspot activity is now moderating the effect of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

OR, how much cooler was it the last time we had no sunspots?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

TSI hides the decline.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, as much as I'd like to grandstand on the warmers about the spots.

This is going to suck and suck a lot.

Warming leads to us having more liquid water. It we over warmed there would be flooding on the coasts, and it would suck to be them.

If we cool, our liquid water turns to ice and we start having droughts, and much shorter growing periods for food. Now these 2 things will lead us to start dying off or killing each other.

This is not funny, this is deathly serious.

Silly ass, a major deviation either way has the same results. It affects food production in a major way, and the population dependent on that food production faces a major reduction.

Right now, the middle provinces northern areas in Canada are in a drought, as is Northern Europe and Siberia. In the meantime, from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the Missouri and the Mississippi are flooding. If the drought in Northern Europe continues, that will again create a massive crop loss in the grains that are normally grown in that area. Australia has already had a massive loss of wheat in Queensland. And the area around the Missouri is not expected to dry out until August.

We are warming and warming rapidly. And the results can now be seen clearly.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Actually, as much as I'd like to grandstand on the warmers about the spots.

This is going to suck and suck a lot.

Warming leads to us having more liquid water. It we over warmed there would be flooding on the coasts, and it would suck to be them.

If we cool, our liquid water turns to ice and we start having droughts, and much shorter growing periods for food. Now these 2 things will lead us to start dying off or killing each other.

This is not funny, this is deathly serious.

Silly ass, a major deviation either way has the same results. It affects food production in a major way, and the population dependent on that food production faces a major reduction.

Right now, the middle provinces northern areas in Canada are in a drought, as is Northern Europe and Siberia. In the meantime, from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the Missouri and the Mississippi are flooding. If the drought in Northern Europe continues, that will again create a massive crop loss in the grains that are normally grown in that area. Australia has already had a massive loss of wheat in Queensland. And the area around the Missouri is not expected to dry out until August.

We are warming and warming rapidly. And the results can now be seen clearly.

Well, so much for having a reasonable conversation.

If someone other than one of the boards jackasses would like to respond, that would be much appretiated.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In their evasion from committing to a position, Warmers have lied themselves into an untenable position yet again.

First they tell us the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has only a minimal impact on climate change. Scarfetta and West estimated it at 30%...why 30%? Good question. Know what their answer was? Basically it was "Because we say so"

Now we're being told that Sunspots are disappearing and that will cause, or has caused, a moderating of the AGW Effect that has never been demonstrated outside of faulty computer models. The last time the Sunspots vanished we had a Little Ice Age!

Do you see what this means?

CO2 must have gained incredible power during this period of sunspot disappearance! How can it be otherwise! We'd be plunged into another Little Ice Age right now, but CO2 ate its spinach and is working overtime to heat up Po' Little Gaia!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually, as much as I'd like to grandstand on the warmers about the spots.

This is going to suck and suck a lot.

Warming leads to us having more liquid water. It we over warmed there would be flooding on the coasts, and it would suck to be them.

If we cool, our liquid water turns to ice and we start having droughts, and much shorter growing periods for food. Now these 2 things will lead us to start dying off or killing each other.

This is not funny, this is deathly serious.

Silly ass, a major deviation either way has the same results. It affects food production in a major way, and the population dependent on that food production faces a major reduction.

Right now, the middle provinces northern areas in Canada are in a drought, as is Northern Europe and Siberia. In the meantime, from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the Missouri and the Mississippi are flooding. If the drought in Northern Europe continues, that will again create a massive crop loss in the grains that are normally grown in that area. Australia has already had a massive loss of wheat in Queensland. And the area around the Missouri is not expected to dry out until August.

We are warming and warming rapidly. And the results can now be seen clearly.

No we're not and you should stop insulting everyone, dickwad

 

[Two Thumbs]

In their evasion from committing to a position, Warmers have lied themselves into an untenable position yet again.

First they tell us the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky has only a minimal impact on climate change. Scarfetta and West estimated it at 30%...why 30%? Good question. Know what their answer was? Basically it was "Because we say so"

Now we're being told that Sunspots are disappearing and that will cause, or has caused, a moderating of the AGW Effect that has never been demonstrated outside of faulty computer models. The last time the Sunspots vanished we had a Little Ice Age!

Do you see what this means?

CO2 must have gained incredible power during this period of sunspot disappearance! How can it be otherwise! We'd be plunged into another Little Ice Age right now, but CO2 ate its spinach and is working overtime to heat up Po' Little Gaia!

We better hope we can have full affect on climate, and make it warm or we are fucked.

 

[syrenn]

Egad, Syrene, what a silly bitch you are pretending to be.

You will ruin my bad ass image saying stuff like that, old rocks!




It still remains.... the sun has no spots. Did we humans do something to the sun? If anyone thinks so, they are rather arrogant in assuming we have such power.


I maintain.... hot, warm, cold.

Syrene, what is wrong with your reading comprehension? Do you understand what Total Solar Irradiance is? And where do you think that anyone has stated that we are influencing the sun? Quite on the contrary, what is being stated is that the reduction in the TSI from the lack of solar sunspot activity is now moderating the effect of the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.

Try linking the dots Its a warmer thing. Just as you link them here yourself.

I understand it very well. The point is that the lack of sun spots IS having an effect on the earth. It has before and will again. No human intervention or influence necessary. Hot, warm, cold.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Actually, as much as I'd like to grandstand on the warmers about the spots.

This is going to suck and suck a lot.

Warming leads to us having more liquid water. It we over warmed there would be flooding on the coasts, and it would suck to be them.

If we cool, our liquid water turns to ice and we start having droughts, and much shorter growing periods for food. Now these 2 things will lead us to start dying off or killing each other.

This is not funny, this is deathly serious.

Silly ass, a major deviation either way has the same results. It affects food production in a major way, and the population dependent on that food production faces a major reduction.

Right now, the middle provinces northern areas in Canada are in a drought, as is Northern Europe and Siberia. In the meantime, from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, the Missouri and the Mississippi are flooding. If the drought in Northern Europe continues, that will again create a massive crop loss in the grains that are normally grown in that area. Australia has already had a massive loss of wheat in Queensland. And the area around the Missouri is not expected to dry out until August.

We are warming and warming rapidly. And the results can now be seen clearly.

No we're not and you should stop insulting everyone, dickwad

To many warmers act like bad weather is something new and is proof of thier assumption that man has this much power.

Should we tell him about the time in history when the earth was one huge desert or tell him about all the ice ages? {before mankind arrived}

 

[dilloduck]

Just because we can't see or measure the sun spots doesn't mean they are not there.
You can't fool me.