Sun Goes Blank Again, Weakest Solar Cycle in More Than a Century

[CrusaderFrank]

Top “sunspotless” days since 1849; the last solar minimum phase produced 3 of these years

Read more: 'The sun goes blank again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century'


Top 16 Warmest Years (NOAA)(1880–2015)
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97
Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, reconstructions of earlier temperatures based on climate proxies, suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia, or longer.

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we have 3 of the lowest sunspot numbers in the last 20 years. and 15 of the 16 warmest years in the same period. And 2007, 2008, and 2009 were among those years.

Odd.

If CO2 is THAT powerful that it can give the Earth a Fev-ah in the midst of a solar minimum, why can't you show us any lab work showing a warming by varying CO2 from 280 to 400ppm.

Maybe your temperature data is fudged and your theory fails

 

[Crick]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent.

Which is far far far far far greater than the .013% alleged change in CO2 over the past 150 years

 

[jon_berzerk]

Top “sunspotless” days since 1849; the last solar minimum phase produced 3 of these years

Read more: 'The sun goes blank again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century'


Top 16 Warmest Years (NOAA)(1880–2015)
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2015 0.90 1.62
2 2014 0.74 1.33
3 2010 0.70 1.26
4 2013 0.66 1.19
5 2005 0.65 1.17
6 (tie) 1998 0.63 1.13
6 (tie) 2009 0.63 1.13
8 2012 0.62 1.12
9 (tie) 2003 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2006 0.61 1.10
9 (tie) 2007 0.61 1.10
12 2002 0.60 1.08
13 (tie) 2004 0.57 1.03
13 (tie) 2011 0.57 1.03
15 (tie) 2001 0.54 0.97
15 (tie) 2008 0.54 0.97
Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, reconstructions of earlier temperatures based on climate proxies, suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia, or longer.

Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, we have 3 of the lowest sunspot numbers in the last 20 years. and 15 of the 16 warmest years in the same period. And 2007, 2008, and 2009 were among those years.

Odd.

If CO2 is THAT powerful that it can give the Earth a Fev-ah in the midst of a solar minimum, why can't you show us any lab work showing a warming by varying CO2 from 280 to 400ppm.

Maybe your temperature data is fudged and your theory fails

you are asking too much from a faith based outfit

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent in a single year, which is far far far far far greater than the .013% alleged change in CO2 over the past 150 years

Again, if CO2 is so powerful, where's the lab work?

 

[LaDexter]

when the North American Ice Cap was at a maximum, the Greenland Ice Cap was at a maximum

Once again, we have a full thread on that one right here for your birdbrain to refuse to read again...

Proof that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change

All links included. In the past million years, CO2 caused Greenland to freeze while melting North America at the same time - that is THE IDIOCY of the FRAUD you love...

 

[mamooth]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent in a single year, which is far far far far far greater than the .013% alleged change in CO2 over the past 150 years

That's so stupid, it's hard to pick just one way to show how stupid it is. Let's try this one.

That cyclic 0.1% TSI change has no noticable effect on the climate at all.

If your retarded "tiny solar changes make a huge difference!" theory was right, it should cause huge changes.

Hence, your retarded theory is wrong.

Again, if CO2 is so powerful, where's the lab work?

Shown to you many times, causing you to soil yourself and run many times. That's why everyone avoids you, because of the stench of shit and failure surrounding you.

 

[Old Rocks]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent.

Which is far far far far far greater than the .013% alleged change in CO2 over the past 150 years

Dumb fuck. 280 ppm to over 400 ppm is over a 40% change. God, you are so fucking stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent.

Which is far far far far far greater than the .013% alleged change in CO2 over the past 150 years

Dumb fuck. 280 ppm to over 400 ppm is over a 40% change. God, you are so fucking stupid.

But the denominator is still 1,000,000. So a big change in a rounding error is still a rounding error.

If CO2 can change temperatures at those miniscule levels, how come you have no lab work

 

[Crick]

Why do you keep lying?

And where did you get your 0.013% factor for CO2 warming? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 42%. The radiative warming from CO2 above that present in 1750 is 1.68 w/m^2. Energy budget breakdowns show 31% of incoming solar irradiation absorbed by the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

But the denominator is still 1,000,000. So a big change in a rounding error is still a rounding error.

So, was it your utter failure in basic math that led to your extreme weakness in basic science?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[

Maybe your temperature data is fudged and your theory fails

Maybe your peer reviewed report is non existent...maybe you think some "CrusaderFrank" type fool has more knowledge than actual scientist ...

 

[LaDexter]

Find what you think is a "top scientist" and ask him/her

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

You won't do that, and your "top scientist" won't answer, because the answer proves CO2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Entertaining reading the Mythers "science".
Fact remains when the sun goes silent the earth grows cold.
As in Ice Age cold.

 

[Old Rocks]

So we have been hearing for a lot of years. Years that have been increasingly warm. Maybe the wolf you are crying about is non existant.

 

[LaDexter]

Entertaining reading the Mythers "science".
Fact remains when the sun goes silent the earth grows cold.
As in Ice Age cold.

Is Antarctica an ice age now??

LOL!!!

The solar cycle causes planet-wide ice ages = ZERO FOR TWO...

 

[LaDexter]

So we have been hearing for a lot of years. Years that have been increasingly warm. Maybe the wolf you are crying about is non existant.

Actually, we have had a steady stream of record low temps, a record long drought of major 'canes hitting the US, growing Antarctic ice and sea ice.... that's 90% of Earth ice growing in your "warming" world...

PARROT ON, MORON!!!

 

[jc456]

The maximum change in total solar irradiance (TSI) driven by this sunspot cycle is one tenth of one percent in a single year, which is far far far far far greater than the .013% alleged change in CO2 over the past 150 years

That's so stupid, it's hard to pick just one way to show how stupid it is. Let's try this one.

That cyclic 0.1% TSI change has no noticable effect on the climate at all.

If your retarded "tiny solar changes make a huge difference!" theory was right, it should cause huge changes.

Hence, your retarded theory is wrong.

Again, if CO2 is so powerful, where's the lab work?

Shown to you many times, causing you to soil yourself and run many times. That's why everyone avoids you, because of the stench of shit and failure surrounding you.

But, .04% of CO2 is doomsday! Funny

 

[jc456]

Why do you keep lying?

And where did you get your 0.013% factor for CO2 warming? The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 42%. The radiative warming from CO2 above that present in 1750 is 1.68 w/m^2. Energy budget breakdowns show 31% of incoming solar irradiation absorbed by the atmosphere.

To what, .042% of the atmosphere?

 

[Crick]

CO2 at 280 ppm made up a significant fraction of the greenhouse warming that kept this planet 33 centigrade degrees above it's albedo-modified blackbody temperature of -18C. Increasing CO2 content by 42% is producing a non-trivial increase in the Earth's equilibrium temperature.

I'm still waiting to hear where you got 0.013%.