The Sun Is ‘Blank’ As Solar Activity Comes To A Standstill

blanksunA new report from seasoned meteorologists says the sun is “almost completely blank” as the center of the solar system enters its weakest cycle in more than a century.

“The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” according to Virginia-based weather forecaster Vencore Weather.

“The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours,” Vencore notes. “Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase.”

“Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase,” according to Vencore.

What does this mean for the climate? For years scientists have been warning that solar activity (a.k.a. sunspots) has been falling, and that could mean cooler global temperatures are on the way.

Some scientists have even warned that weakening solar activity could spark another “Little Ice Age,” arguing conditions mirror the centuries of global cooling the Earth went through from the late Middle Ages to the mid-19th Century.

“The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998,” wrote Jürgen Lange Heine, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy.

“From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values ​​similar to those of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next few years is predicted,” Heine wrote.

The “stagnation” in global temperatures since the late 1990s Heine refers to is commonly called the “pause” by climate scientists. Most scientists attribute this “pause” in warming to natural climate cycles that have a cooling effect on the planet, especially ocean oscillation cycles. But it seems that increasingly researchers are looking to the sun for an explanation for the “pause.”

The sun has a very large impact on temperatures on the Earth’s thermosphere. Temperatures there increase “with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity,” according to Vencore.

“If history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live,” Vencore notes.

There are two periods with long episodes of low solar activity, according to Vencore. One is called the “Maunder Minimum” and lasted from about 1645 to 1715. The other is called the “Dalton Minimum” and stretched from about 1790 to 1830.

“Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many scientists as the ‘Little Ice Age,’” according to Vencore. “In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth.”

“This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth,” notes Vencore.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (23)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    So if low solar activity contributed to the Little Ice Age and the consequences of a cooling earth are more devastating than a warming earth,how much CO2 would have to be pumped into the atmosphere to maintain current temperatures ? Would added CO2 even offset the effect of low solar activity ?

    Someone would have modelled that scenario by now I assume .

    On the other hand we won’t even need to model it if the Thames starts freezing over again .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Added Co2 will have almost no effect over Soar Angular Momentum. The Sun is around 98% of the total mass of the solar system. Man made Co2 is… nothing.
      [img]http://www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwave.png[/img]
      This was “modeled” long ago.
      [quote] This article will attempt to explain the theory in segments which will hopefully spread some insight into this fascinating real world observation. AMT begins with the orbital path of the Sun. The Sun does not remain stationary in the centre of the solar system, but instead orbits a point or gravitational centre of the solar system (SSB). The gravity of the outer 4 planets determines the daily position of the Sun which follows a kaleidoscope pattern orbit around the SSB. The orbit shape is basically an inner loop followed by and outer loop and is primarily controlled by Jupiter and Saturn.[/quote]
      The “bump” in the graph from 2010 almost exactly matches the one from 1650, or the Maunder Minimum.
      [quote]The “bumps” on Carl’s graph here line up precisely with 3 distinct occurrences.

      1. The Sun’s path around the center of the solar system is radically changed.

      2. The 4 giant gas planets are in the same position.

      3. The Sun’s output is greatly reduced.

      Angular Momentum and in particular Neptune & Uranus I think are a marker for the underlying driver for overall solar cycle modulation as well as Grand Minima. This my first article outlines the theory and also predicts a Grand Minimum during SC24 & SC25.
      [/quote]
      In this instance it seems the “model” prediction of low solar activity has been confirmed.
      https://landscheidt.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/a-guide-to-understanding-the-solar-powerwave/

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        And what goes hand in hand with solar activity? Clouds…

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. The science is solid. Cooking the books hasn’t hidden the proof. Only existing data and the fundamental relation between physics and math are needed or used.

    The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    Reply

    • Avatar

      unpacified

      |

      Anyone reading this fossil based propaganda commenting community: This is the truth o our situation, and I vow under charges of purgery that I have no alterior motive.

      The Arctic Methane Monsters Rapid Rise(84min. Video in depth on Climate Change, and our extinction. Do independent research if necessary, but this whole comment board is compromised by paid for propaganda. Always pay attention to sources, sponsors, and the variables in question, as well as in many cases those not mentioned. There is nothing more important than the general public becoming carbon aware, and this is exactly what THEY are afraid of…

      Reply

      • Avatar

        JayPee

        |

        Independent research ? You wouldn’t know it if it hit you. Instead of parroting the dogma of climatism, do some independent research yourself, if you know how.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Dan Pangburn

        |

        I did independent research. I discovered what actually causes climate change (95% correlation since before 1900). I recently discovered proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. These findings are disclosed at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com. It is at a level that common sense should be adequate to understand; perhaps quicker with some science skill.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Amirlach Precisely the point so how is it this giant swindle ever got this far ?

    The convenient get out of jail of politicians who can no longer deceive the public is the all to familiar shrug and statement ..”.The scientists say “… Why then have so many scientists been cowed into silence when it is obvious human generated CO2 increases can have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature and remain a fraction of 1 % .

    Funding, nah couldn’t be, they have more integrity than that don’t they ?

    Congrats to those scientists who have not been bullied into silence .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]Amirlach Precisely the point so how is it this giant swindle ever got this far ?[/quote] They call it “The Cause”. It has been from the start simply a way to leverage a global wealth redistribution.

      Many politicians and almost all of the media is on board with this cause.

      It’s the reason none of the failed models have been corrected, to do so would be admitting Co2 is not a problem and without the fake problem the fake solution would be rejected by the people.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    I agree, so what is at the core of the objective for global wealth distribution ?

    Does it serve multiple purposes ?

    !. Facilitate the means to dramatically reduce the population of the world .

    2. Create an institutional insurance policy in the event current unsupported national debts implode .

    3.Secure a steady $$Trillion source of funding for the UN(or other named entity ) to expand it’s reach into the internal affairs and policies of sovereign nations .

    4.Reward the insiders pumping the tires of the climate hustle . Effectively a commission and other rewards for selling the scary global warming scam designed to motivate people into accepting broader Central Government from outside their own country .

    5.Expand the reach of an international (UN) or other affiliated court to enforce the dictates of the one world government including mandatory population reductions . Appropriately named Carbon Footprints .

    6.Restructure banking and financial institutions through Central Banking policy to” send the right price signals “.

    That’s a partial list. I’m sure you can add your own .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      unpacified

      |

      How about we block all subsidizing of fossil fuels, and begin taxing carbon and other ghg, or could just put giant bubbles around every town and we would get the benefit of all climate deniers dieing of heat strokes, and breathing problems, while the sustainable bubbles prosper, and will get to live to see a livable planet in 20yrs

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        You said it all right there, live in a bubble, then you can have your greenhouse effect. 😀

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        [quote]How about we block all subsidizing of fossil fuels, and begin taxing carbon and other ghg, [/quote] What “subsidization”? When oil prices recently fell, every Canadian provincial government went into hysterics trying to figure out how they would make up the budget shortfalls from declining oil and gas royalty’s.

        The truth is, the oil industry “subsidizes” governments through Royalty payments and taxes, not the other way around.

        As for your “bubble” idea, I suggest you start on a smaller scale as a proof of concept. Place a bubble, bread bag over your own “sustainable” head and prosper.

        Show us how it’s done.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Bill Butler

    |

    Total Solar Irradiance peaked in the 1950s and has been noticeable declining since the 1980s. Yet this has been the period of greatest global warming. http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

    2014 was the warmest year on record and the 12-month period ending March 2015 has substantially broken the 2014 record.

    The article misquotes the actual solar record and is completely off base in its conclusion. The earth continues to warm under the influence of rising greenhouse gases.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      JayPee

      |

      Are you out of your mind ? 2014 was the hottest year on record ? Your claim is not just faulty, it’s a lie.

      The only thing that’s continuing to warm is your brain fever. I don’t expect you agree or understand.

      But welcome anyway troll. It was getting boring not to have a punching bag to ridicule, kick around and laugh at.

      Give us some more entertainment.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Me

        |

        They will lose because of their BS. People see it for what it is, not what they claim. Sooner ot later more and more people will see it.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        Might be a little early to declare him a troll JayPee. Misinformed maybe, but if he is polite and does not use the methods of our recent trollish visitors have used, we should try to be civil.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          JayPee

          |

          OK, I agree. I guess it’s because I’ve seen so many of the proven trolls start this way.
          But of course, giving a true troll the benefit of the doubt usually emboldens them, sometimes ridiculously. OK, maybe I should take my chances and slam them only when they fully reveal themselves. But be prepared for extensive idiotic verbiage.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        unpacified

        |

        I swear this whole site is dedicated to manipulating public opinion with oil/gas pd trolls. I am a real person. And oil/gas own our media,government,our rights, and the majority of public opinion through lies and manipulation as seen on these comments…

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Dan Pangburn

          |

          unp – You have been hoodwinked. Now some are ‘cooking the books’ lowering temperatures reported earlier to make it appear that it is still warming. Do you actually believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 would change the way that the oceans absorb solar radiation? Take the blinders off. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

          Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          Opinions or Concensus are of no value when it comes to the scientific method. Only if your model prediction is correct.

          The scientific method states that-

          “If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

          The AGW Hypothesis has been tested against observations. It has failed every time.

          Richard Feynman Reveals the Key to Science in 63 Seconds
          http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/11/richard-feynman-key-to-science/

          Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]Total Solar Irradiance peaked in the 1950s and has been noticeable declining since the 1980s. Yet this has been the period of greatest global warming. [/quote] Even though it peaked during the 50’s it is still in what is called the “Modern Maximum”. So even though it “declined” slightly it is still above the average for

      It has not been warming as predicted for over 18 years, which has invalidated all the Co2 based models.
      [img]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9-EqBi3gVAE/VC6pDRiNPUI/AAAAAAAArik/m1OBzYMXoaI/s800/monckton18years1month.png [/img]
      It clearly shows 2014 is NOT the warmest evah! [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/screenhunter_8870-may-02-08-03.gif[/img]
      False claims like these are getting tiresome.
      [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/100degrees1936vs2014.gif[/img]
      [quote]NASA ignores their own satellite data, in order to generate propaganda for the White House. Their Earth science funding should be cut off, until they agree to be scientists rather than propagandists.[/quote]

      And it is not the “period of the greatest warming”.

      It is exactly the same as 1895-1946 Warming that was “natural”.
      [img]http://www.debate.org/photos/albums/1/2/1423/35583-1423-x9xs7-a.jpg[/img]

      The 1895-1946 warming was likely slightly “faster”.

      Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.