Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 07, 2018

What makes this so significant and unique is that it almost certainly signals the return of the next solar minimum, a return that comes more than a year early. The solar cycle the Sun is now completing has only been ten years long. It is also one of the weakest in more than a hundred years. This combination is unprecedented. In the past such a weak cycle required a long cycle, not a short one.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Low sunspot activity has been linked to the min-ice age in Europe.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gosh.

So how does that explain the data according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)?

According to NOAA the year 2018 is on pace to be the fourth hottest year on record. Only three other years have been hotter: 2015, 2016 and 2017. All well within the "weak activity" period.

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-07 03:22 PM | Reply

I don't explain it. Maybe it would have been even hotter. NOAAA reported the solar activity are you doubting it? Why do you suppose NOAAA tracks solar activity?

#2 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-07 03:50 PM | Reply

Extra A in NOAA.

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-07 03:50 PM | Reply

Winter is coming.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-07 04:28 PM | Reply

Guys, sunspots have no relation to the thermal output of the sun - they they are phenomenon of it's magnetosphere. Granted, the Sun is a variable star, but you really can look up the history of it's energy output.

Also, this: "When the Sun is inactive, it allows more cosmic rays to penetrate into the inner solar system."

No. Cosmic rays have the average energy of a softball. And nobody knows where they come from. And they come from every direction regardless of anything. Fortunately, you only get hit in the DNA by about two a year.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-08-07 04:29 PM | Reply

His link went here: www.stce.be

Cosmic rays have charge and are affected by magnetosphere? Lack of sunspots also comes with fewer coronal mass ejections?

Note those are questions not statements. My interest in sunspots has to do with radio wave propagation and reflection.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-07 04:53 PM | Reply

Why do you suppose NOAAA tracks solar activity?

#2 | Posted by visitor_

It's called Space Weather.

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-07 05:04 PM | Reply

A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century, likely between 1 and 5°C, depending on how much we manage to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. While this is equivalent to about a decade's worth of human-caused warming, it's also important to bear in mind that any solar cooling would only be temporary, until the end of the solar minimum.

skepticalscience.com

#8 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-08-07 11:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Sun's output is not expected to change much at all during a minimum, so that should little effect on weather. The affect on output varies by wavelength with UV most affected. What appears not well understood is the interaction of the magnetosphere, cosmic rays and weather. I haven't read that a causal link between the mini ice and the solar minimum has been absolutely established.

#9 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-08-08 07:58 AM | Reply

"The Sun's output is not expected to change much at all during a minimum, so that should little effect on weather."

Numerous records indicate that the amount of energy the Earth receives from the Sun is quite stable over time. Increased solar activity such as solar flares and storms do not increase the temperatures on Earth as that energy is absorbed or deflected by the thermosphere and the magnetic belt.

The LIA being caused by a solar maximum is not a proven theory.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-08 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ande I am sure the sun has nothing to do with our weather. HA!

#11 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-08 11:03 AM | Reply

Oh. Now you're angry with Sun. Well, good luck with that.

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-08-08 12:06 PM | Reply

Lets pass a law controling the sun.

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-08 01:03 PM | Reply

Trump's fault.

#14 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2018-08-08 01:12 PM | Reply

The LIA being caused by a solar maximum is not a proven theory.

#10 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Should have been solar minimum. But the point being that solar minimums and solar maximums do not really affect temperatures on Earth in any meaningful way. 🌞

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-08 01:47 PM | Reply

Ande I am sure the sun has nothing to do with our weather. HA!

#11 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Do you not understand the difference between Weather and Climate?

Please don't post if you don't even know what the discussion is about.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-08 01:52 PM | Reply

Climate is long range weather............. Do you have proof it is man caused? WTF did man do for the last several million years to affect it yet it changed.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-08 06:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Climate is long range weather............. Do you have proof it is man caused? WTF did man do for the last several million years to affect it yet it changed.

#17 | POSTED BY SNIPER

WTF are you talking about? No, it's not. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

You want proof? Sure. We have TONS of it.

How we know it's Humans:
www.edf.org

The research falls into nine independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:

Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)

Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)

Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)

Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)

Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)

Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)

Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)

Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)

Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-08 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is no actual scientific opposition to the fact that Humans are the cause of Climate Change.
www.skepticalscience.com
www.ucsusa.org
Studies into whether there is scientific agreement on Humans causing Climate Change:
Oreskes 2004: 100% consensus
Doran 2009: 97% consensus
Anderegg 2010: 97% consensus
Cook 2003: 97% consensus
Verheggen 2014: 91% consensus
Stenhouse 2014: 93% consensus
Carlton: 97% consensus

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-08 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Climate is long range weather............. Do you have proof it is man caused? WTF did man do for the last several million years to affect it yet it changed.

#17 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Your move, genius.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-08 06:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you have proof it is man caused? WTF did man do for the last several million years to affect it yet it changed.
#17 | POSTED BY SNIPER

The term "change" in climate change is a colloquial reference to anthropogenic (source) and an increase in rate of change (effect).

Further (for context):

proof
pro͞of/Submit
noun
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

With that said:
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warmingLess energy is escaping to space: Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts like a blanket; adding more CO2 makes the 'blanket' thicker, and humans are adding more CO2 all the time.

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun', the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. ... [This] tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

skepticalscience.com

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 06:53 PM | Reply

#18 and #19 were faster and better responses than mine.

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-08-08 06:56 PM | Reply

Sniper have you ever been inside a greenhouse?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-08 06:56 PM | Reply

It's a bit foolish to try and teach snippy anything. And seriously why should anyone try? It's getting ridiculous. Snippy makes stupid claims then wants everyone to prove him wrong over and over.

Trying to teach Snippy anything is like trying to teach algebra to a pig. The pig is only interested in playing in its own slop.

Just like snippy.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-08 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Climate is long range weather............. Do you have proof it is man caused? WTF did man do for the last several million years to affect it yet it changed.

#17 | POSTED BY SNIPER

I know I keep saying it but you really are dumb. Dumb dumb dumb.

Only somebody who's a complete idiot would keep trotting this argument out despite it being shot to hell every other time it was trotted out in the past.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-09 10:12 AM | Reply

#18 and #19 were faster and better responses than mine.

#22 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

To be fair, they were posts I made earlier on another similar thread. So I just did a copy and paste from my earlier posts.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-09 01:09 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort