Actually, there is an active sunspot at this moment.  See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/04/th-sun-puts-on-some-fireworks-for-the-4th-of-july/

On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]>wrote:

>  Here is the data as of end of May. Right now there are zero sunspots. The
> prediction is probably not very meaningful but it is possibly  a low or no
> sunspot cycle. Who is to say what #24 will really  bring? If it follows the
> red line it will be cool.
>
>      <http://www.sec.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *David Schnare
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:44 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
>
> *Subject:* [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>
>   The sun is "normal".  It is at the nadir of its normal cycle.  The
> length of the cycle is still at issue, but cycle 24 has clearly begun, just
> not very quickly.
>
> d.
>
>   On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
>>  Does anyone have any decent studies of what will happen when the sun
>> gets back to normal?  As far as I'm aware, the IPCC don't consider solar
>> cycle factors when projecting temp. changes.
>> We'd all look a bit silly if a totally-predictable .5C rise came and
>> slapped up about the face like a wet fish in 5 or 10yrs time.
>>
>> A
>>
>> 2009/7/4 Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]>
>>
>>  Yes. And that is why we absolutely will need geoengineering, not as
>>> insurance but as a means to keep the temperature in line.
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:
>>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sam Carana
>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 8:47 PM
>>> *To:* Geoengineering
>>> *Subject:* [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>>>
>>>   It's not just sunspots. Have a look at this:
>>> NASA report Deep Solar 
>>> Minimum<http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm>.
>>>
>>> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
>>>
>>> We are currently at the low point of number of solar cycles that combine
>>> to mask the full impact of global warming. The sun hasn't been more quiet in
>>> terms of sunspots since 1913; we're now at the low point of a sunspot cycle
>>> that returns every 11 year,
>>>
>>> Additionally, we are at a 50-year low in solar wind pressure and at a low
>>> in solar radio emissions; radio telescopes are now recording the dimmest
>>> "radio sun" since 1955.
>>>
>>> Finally, we are also at a 12-year low in solar irradiance or brightness.
>>>
>>> This PARTLY explains why temperatures haven't risen as much as projected.
>>> The conclusion is that the full impact of global warming is going to be a
>>> lot worse from now on.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Sam Carana
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:20 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gene,
>>>>
>>>> Sunspot activity is pretty predictable, as you can see from the
>>>> picture.  The 11 year cycle is apparent in tree rings.
>>>>
>>>> However the El Niño is totally unpredictable.  We have just had a strong
>>>> La Niña:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
>>>>
>>>> The combination of low sunspot activity and La Niña has led to cooler
>>>> global temperatures since 1998.  However, despite this, the Arctic sea ice
>>>> has been retreating and breaking records (see Albert's email yesterday on
>>>> the "Geoengineering seminar" topic).
>>>>
>>>> Thus there is now a significant possibility* of a seasonally ice-free
>>>> Arctic ocean within two or three years.  Suppose SRM with stratospheric
>>>> aerosol proves problematic. If we are to get the Salter/Latham cloud
>>>> brightening technique working and scaled up, sufficient to cool the water
>>>> entering the Arctic, we need to press ahead.  It is a matter of will.  This
>>>> is not like putting a man on the moon!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> *P.S.  Any probability over 1% would be extremely significant, given the
>>>> risks from methane out-gassing, etc., if the ice disappears.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eugene I. Gordon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is news that someone can actually predict sunsot activity . Assuming 
>>>> that
>>>> is the case we can expect increased warming and more urgent need for
>>>> geoengineering. We cannot predict reliably tomorrows' weather but we can
>>>> predict next years climate???
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: John Nissen [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 4:41 AM
>>>> To: [email protected]
>>>> Cc: [email protected]; 'Peter Read'; 'Ken Caldeira'; 'Margaret Leinen';
>>>> 'Mike MacCracken'; 'Ken Caldeira'; 'Dan Whaley'; 'Geoengineering'
>>>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Concerning sunspots, we can expect much increased activity over next few
>>>> years:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/Sunspot-bfly.gif
>>>>
>>>> And here is some news about El 
>>>> Niño:http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1908533,00.html?xid=rss-topst
>>>> ories
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we can expect global temperatures to rise, and possibly the Arctic sea
>>>> ice to retreat even faster!
>>>>
>>>> Are we prepared?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Wigley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>>
>>>> You never responded to Margaret's question (or perhaps I missed it).
>>>>
>>>> Tom.
>>>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David W. Schnare
>> Center for Environmental Stewardship
>>
>> >>
>>


-- 
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

<<inline: clip_image002.jpg>>

Reply via email to