Does a Quieter Sun equate to a Colder Climate on Earth

GOOD! It's about time we had some cooler weather! And i agree with your Post completely, always have known this. Scientists from the 1970's talked about this.

There's a long list of dead scientists as well i believe the names were on Rense, hmmm wonder what exactly the Gov't isn't telling us, again, different decade different story.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Was it the video on this page which also predicts greater volcanic activity during temperature swings.

I tbink it's the other way round, when I get volcanic activity, then my temperature rises...you have lovely blue eyes BTW!

Nobel Laureate Smashes the Global Warming Hoax....

a reply to: glend

Do you believe he is an authority on climatology? If so why?

a reply to: Signals

I'll take the doomsday climate change preachers seriously when they acknowledge that METHANE is the #1 contributor to GHG.

Can't do that though. People might stop buying as much meat (due to livestock being the #1 contributor to methane production)...and people just might not get cancer or other health issues as much, if at all. How would they ever make money off of "searching for a cure"?

Indeed the climate is changing...it's the climate. It's what it does. To proportions of doomsday though? I highly doubt it.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: smurfy

The Sun is clearly the most important influence on weather and temperature on this planet, to ignore that would be to ignore the whole concept of a sun-planet system.

Well obviously that's why it cools down at night . But the difference between now and the last little ice age, is food technology, the greenhouse to name but one . If you have ever flown over Holland its a well thought out country.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Was it the video on this page which also predicts greater volcanic activity during temperature swings.

Not that one, no, though it does look like a good video. The one I watched was a European fellow (I have the impression he was British, though that could be wrong!), who had plotted the solar activity for at least a few hundred years, comparing it to global temperature changes. He discussed things like the "little Ice Age" and also a period wherein they were growing grapes quite far north for a time. The video stated that his data showed a very clear correlation between solar activity and earth temperatures, with more activity meaning warmer weather, and vice versa. If I can locate it, I'll post it, though it seems to not even be in the browser history, which is very odd.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: glend

Do you believe he is an authority on climatology? If so why?

I don't believe anyone is an authority on climatology least of all the pupils that buy their badge by reciting AGW every chance they get to win their paycheck. Its just nice to see a world renowned physicist logically clear his way through all the hokum to tell people there is nothing to fear from AGW.

What is the optimum temperature for the earth????

a reply to: Sparkymedic

I'll take the doomsday climate change preachers seriously when they acknowledge that METHANE is the #1 contributor to GHG.

Except that it isn't. While it is indeed a more powerful greenhouse gas, its concentration in the atmosphere is, as yet, far too low to outstrip the effects of CO2. That could change however, as warming releases more and more methane in the Arctic.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I don't think I've seen it. Yes if you do ever find it, post as I for one be interested. Thanks LadyGreenEyes.

a reply to: glend

What is the optimum temperature for the earth????

The Earth doesn't really give a damn.
For our civilization, about 1º cooler than it is now might be considered "optimal." Will more warming destroy our civilization? No, not in the next few hundred years anyway. But it sure will cause some major problems for a lot of people.

a reply to: glend

So you don't believe he is an authority on the matter, but you post his video opinion. Why? Is it because you agree with him?

a reply to: glend

Our earths heliosphere isn't able to protect us from solar or cosmic radiation as well as it has done in the past so smaller coronal mass ejections from the sun can have a greater effect on electric systems in orbit and on earth.

The Earth doesn't have a heliosphere. The Sun does though.

The Earth's magnetic field is plenty strong enough to deflect CMEs. And will continue to do so. You just displayed a very large level of ignorance however in claiming that a weakened magnetic field would result greater effect on electrical systems on the surface.

The reason CMEs can cause problems with electrical grids is because they cause the Earth's magnetic field to wiggle. This is called geomagnetic storming. Now, when the wiggling magnetic field moves across long conductors (like power lines) it creates electrical currents in those lines and that is what can cause problems.

But the thing is, the strength of those currents is related to the strength of the magnetic field which produces them . So, if the Earth's field weakens significantly, so will the threat to electrical grids. No magnetic field, no geomagnetic storms at all.

Similarly, the danger to satellites is not so much from the CME itself. What happens is that the magnetosphere can capture charged particles from the CME. They get trapped and build up there. That's what the Van Allen belts are, particles trapped by Earth's magnetic field. It is the higher concentration of particles which can present problems for satellites. Again, a weakened magnetic field would not really exacerbate the problem.

Well, their prediction of less sunspots has not materialized. There also is no real evidence that it is going to be coming in the next couple of years. The evidence shows it may happen based on limited prior information, but it is more speculation than anything.

It could be right, it could be wrong. I would give it a fifty fifty chance, which is better than if someone would have predicted this to occur six or seven years ago. The rate of it happening is elevated and that is all the evidence shows in the dozen articles addressing this that I have read.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend

What is the optimum temperature for the earth????

The Earth doesn't really give a damn.
For our civilization, about 1º cooler than it is now might be considered "optimal." Will more warming destroy our civilization? No, not in the next few hundred years anyway. But it sure will cause some major problems for a lot of people.

The question is not so much preferred temperature but one that allows all life forms on the earth to flourish. Its clear that plants prefer a greater concentration of CO2 and even the much threatened polar bears seem to be thriving so why are you so concerned if the temperature is 1 degree cooler or warmer than it is today. Atmospheric humidity already absorbs must of suns rays at CO2 absorption bands (2.5 microns, 4.3 microns and 13 microns) which rules out a venus greenhouse runaway affect so what gives???

a reply to: rickymouse

Well, their prediction of less sunspots has not materialized.

Upon what do you base that claim? Because the data certainly indicates otherwise. In fact, the prediction for Solar Cycle 24 has turned out to be quite accurate.

a reply to: glend

Its clear that plants prefer a greater concentration of CO2

Yes, assuming their other requirements are met. In any case, they don't seem to be keeping up with the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere.

so why are you so concerned if the temperature is 1 degree cooler or warmer than it is today.

I'm not concerned about 1º. If that's all the warmer or cooler it got there's no real problem.

Atmospheric humidity already absorbs must of suns rays at CO2 absorption bands (2.5 microns, 4.3 microns and 13 microns) which rules out a venus greenhouse runaway affect so what gives???

What gives is this. Water vapor content in air is dependant upon temperature. The warmer it is, the more water vapor it can carry. When moist air cools, the water vapor condenses out of it

CO2 content is not dependant upon temperature. When temperatures cool, the CO2 stays there.

So, when temperatures rise because of increased CO2, the air can hold more water. And as you point out, water vapor is a greenhouse gas (stronger than CO2, in fact). So the warming effect increases. Only it doesn't cool down as much because the CO2 keeps it warmer. It is called a feedback loop. Water content is determined by temperature, not vice versa.

a reply to: glend

I'm not going to argue with you on any of that.

I'm just saying that climate change is occurring. The planet is warming overall, despite some unexpected cold winters in North America.

a reply to: Phage

This last solar cycle was twin peaked, which is why it was a little different. The low sunspot numbers were predicted for this cycle early on and that was correct but some sources say that using the present change to judge an upcoming cooling period is not really science.

The woman scientist who came forward and said this cooling was going to be happening, took sides with the global warming opposition because they gave her such positive reinforcement. On Physics.Org, an article written by some physicists sort of tried to explain her actions and why this happened that she went astray. They stated that this is just a hypothesis that this is coming.

The evidence you showed only shows we did have a lower sunspot cycle it does not supply evidence that it will lead to global cooling at all. In fact, we have nicer weather up here in the U.P, seems the snow storm decided to hit Texas instead. The weather during this El-Nino cannot be used to prove global warming or climate change either. It is just a powerful El-nino. Applying evidence properly and not just by association alone is important.

I've never heard the sun make a peep, how can they say it is going to get quieter.

a reply to: rickymouse

but some sources say that using the present change to judge an upcoming cooling period is not really science.

I would tend to agree. Solar activity has been declining since cycle 19 (1958). Have temperatures? It's hard to see a correlation between solar activity and the temperature trend.

The weather during this El-Nino cannot be used to prove global warming or climate change either. It is just a powerful El-nino.

Yes. A spike in a trend. Just as 1998 was. This one just might have that one beat though.