After two-plus years of few sunspots, even fewer solar flares, and a generally eerie calm, the sun is finally showing signs of life.

I think solar minimum is behind us,” says sunspot forecaster David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

His statement is prompted by an October flurry of sunspots. “Last month we counted five sunspot groups,” he says. That may not sound like much, but in a year with record-low numbers of sunspots and long stretches of utter spotlessness, five is significant. “This represents a real increase in solar activity.”

Even more significant is the fact that four of the five sunspot groups belonged to Solar Cycle 24, the long-awaited next installment of the sun’s 11-year solar cycle. “October was the first time we’ve seen sunspots from new Solar Cycle 24 outnumbering spots from old Solar Cycle 23. It’s a good sign that the new cycle is taking off…”

Those who were blaming climate change on decreasing sunspots can, of course, switch over to blaming increasing numbers of sunspots for the same phenomenon.




  1. bill says:

    Low solar activity causes less solar wind which causes less cosmic rays which causes global warming…

    More activity causes more solar wind which will push back the magnetosphere and let more cosmic radiation in which causes clouds and global cooling…

    right?

  2. Global warming is not caused by the sun. Well, of course it actually is. But, the real cause with which we’re concerned is trapping the sun’s heat rather than radiating it.

    Among scientists I’ve read, most put the increased solar radiation at about 5-15% of the cause for global warming, leaving us with 85-95% in our lap. One paper I read put the effects at 5-30%. Even the high end of that range still leaves GHGs responsible for a minimum of 70% of observed warming.

  3. Joe says:

    This is the best video about the size of planets. Kinda missing the topic but…
    [edit: pls us tinyurl]
    http://tinyurl.com/3g8j38

  4. Somebody_Else says:

    Who was blaming climate change on decreasing sunspots?

    If anything, the weather has been noticeably cooler in many parts of the world the last few years. Temperatures peaked back in 1998-2000 and have been somewhat lower since, hence “global warming” became “climate change.”

    I’m sure humans are having some effect on climate, but I think we would have to pump a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere to cause significant changes (CO2 was at ~2000ppm in the Cretaceous period, currently ~350ppm). I would hope that we can significantly reduce emissions over the next century as we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear fusion and hydrogen for energy.

  5. James Hill says:

    The election is over. The doomsday stories just don’t have the same impact.

  6. Nate says:

    I recently read a book called “The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850.” The discussion focuses on how a global drop in temperature caused major changes in society, lead to increases in exploration, and altered the relationships of European countries. The reason for the Little Ice Age, as stated in the book, was an almost complete lack of solar sunspot activity. The book also states that the Little Ice Age was only ended by both a combination of increased solar activity and global warming caused by industrialization. I was left with the opinion that solar activity had a far greater impact than man-made climatic impacts.

  7. @#1: I hope you are cynically joking…

    @#2: Those are likely the same scientist who have made those estimates using such “little assumptions” as the infinitely tall atmosphere,…

    Being astrophysicist myself I see clear moment-by-moment correlation between heating of all planets in the Solar system and increased Solar activity from early 1990’s to early 2000’s. So, from the pure experimental evidence the largest impact on global (solar system wide)warming is from the Sun activity. And that is correlated to the number of dark spots (more spots – more activity).

    What I see as “global warming by humans miscalculation” is the fact that everyone blindly watches CO2 levels alone. Forgetting (again supported by clear experimental evidence, just search for “global dimming”) that the same junk we place in atmosphere also shades it… Comparing how much some of our planetary friends have warmed up during the same periods one would have expected Earth to warm up MORE. So, my first approximation is that our pollution-related dimming cooled the planet slightly more than our raising of the CO2 levels have warmed it up. But, when I see someone get a grant to study such correlations, please pinch me as I will be dreaming…

  8. Brian says:

    #7 “But, when I see someone get a grant to study such correlations, please pinch me as I will be dreaming…”

    I seem to remember a researcher looking at this after 9/11, either from India or Austraila. He observed an increase in the amount of solar radiation reaching ground stations, and correlated it to the decrease in atmospheric “particulates” caused by the decrease in air travel at that time. The study was more concerned with the long term changes in solar radiation over the past century or so, and the 9/11 timeframe results were just a happy bonus.

  9. GregA says:

    I don’t see the relevance of this. It matters not one iota what is causing global warming… We still have to spend money we don’t have hardening ourselves for the reality of global warming. There is precisely zero absolution for pointing your finger at the sun. Because of our science of green house gases, at least we know how to affect the earth to mitigate the impact of global warming.

    Electric cars still on the table. Meat eating is still history.

  10. green says:

    Dang… Solar cycle 24…. Things are about to heat up – not talking about the weather.

  11. /t. says:

    Seems to me that the folks who claim “global warming (climate change) is very bad and something must be done” are grasping at causes that substantiate their positions.

    I believe that humans have/had very little impact on the climate there’s just far too little historic data to be conclusive.

    Don’t get me wrong, we’ve made a complete mess of the global environment and I fully support all (air, water, ground) pollution reduction/elimination efforts.

    Fact: we pollute too much and we need stop doing so.

    Fiction: our pollution has caused/contributed to global climate change.

    Fact: climate will continue to change for all kinds of reasons.

    Fiction: if we stop polluting, the climate will stop changing.

    And because it’s important to repeat ..

    Fact: we pollute too much and we need stop doing so.

    Thanks,

    /T.

  12. MikeN says:

    Why is this news?
    Everyone knows 24 is starting on November 23.

  13. /t. says:

    #5 @ JH

    Dear Mr. Hill,

    I had hoped that the passing of Nov. 4 would have marked the passing of your incessant political jabs. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the posts themselves but the majority of blog items (even this one about frickin’ sun spots) here are littered with your political stick poking.

    Seriously, have you nothing else?

  14. Grin Reaper says:

    Did you know that 92% of figures found on the internet are made up?

  15. Hugh Ripper says:

    Everyone knows that global warming is directly related to declining pirate numbers and nothing to do with the sun.

  16. James Hill says:

    #13 – Political jabbing of those who are sensitive to it? That will never end.

    As for my comment in this thread, I’m actually serious. There were an odd number of stories around (many of which made their way on to this blog) related to “UFOs” or “Doomsday” during period of time between the conventions and the election. In turn, those stories have either dropped off or are best filed in the “everything will be OK” column.

    Why did this happen? Well, the X-Files movie was a dud, so I’m guessing there was a lot of pent up angst amongst the liberal “truth is out there” crowd. And as you know, Obama managed to rally all of the liberal groups with his populist message, something Kerry and Gore weren’t able to accomplish.

    That being said, to deny that this happened would be follow, as it would be to deny the political tie in of this article.

  17. James Hill says:

    And by follow, I mean folly. Apparently an edit feature on this blog would be folly too, as opposed to following the popular trend.

  18. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz says:

    I’m gear up for it. Just came back from winter work gear shopping.

  19. /t. says:

    # 16

    Less sensitive to it than weary of it …

    # 17

    I’d vote “block/ignore” feature over “edit” … we’ve covered why …

    On the upside, not a hint of politics in post #17. Thanks for that.

    /T.

  20. deowll says:

    Humans have had a major impact on the planet but things like plowed fields and a paved planet may be as big as anything else.

    Sun spot activity tells you how much heat the sun is throwing out and it is the big heat engine in our neck of space.

    The little ice age was no joke.

  21. Balbas says:

    Let’s see …

    We had little or no sunspots for what… eight years?

    And because a Democrat was elected President they are coming back?

  22. Uncle Patso says:

    “October was the first time we’ve seen sunspots from new Solar Cycle 24 outnumbering spots from old Solar Cycle 23.”

    How can they tell which cycle a spot is from?

  23. Buzz says:

    Is the Sun experiencing global warming? Does that count?

  24. #7 – dusan maletic,

    This may be the kind of article you seek. I’m not willing to buy it personally. I’m sure you know about Google Scholar and probably many better search engines if you want to find more.

    Comparative Planetary Climatology

    As I’ve stated, I have read at least 4 peer reviewed articles that include astrophysics considerations and state that of our current warming only 5-15% can be accounted for by the solar maximum.

    If you purchase the article above, please post a small chunk of the conclusion. I’d be curious to read what they conclude as well.

  25. Breetai says:

    Great…. The global warming BS. Look here’s the statement in the article.

    “says sunspot forecaster” Okay, weather it’s sunspot forecasters or local and global weather forecasters. Sorry but the science all these guys are stuck with is about as sturdy as jello. Pollution is bad, Global Warming is a lie.

  26. James Hill says:

    #19 – Block/ignore? Then no one would read what most of the editors post.

  27. #26 – Nat King Troll,

    When you go to a party, do you make it a point to go out of your way to insult the hosts?

  28. Rick Cain says:

    Lets hope this doesn’t happen during an earth magnetic pole reversal, otherwise we will all have to wear aluminum clothing for about 150 years.

  29. highqham says:

    Gad People,

    All this talk of sunspots and not one mention of what it really means: Better ionization of the ionosphere. To a radio amateur that means better long distance communications and higher frequency ham bands that are open late into the evening, if not all night.

    Yea, I know; who cares now that there is Skype? But high speed Internet isn’t available on Minerva Reef or Clipperton Island!

    The maximaum useable frequency goes way up with lots of sunspots. You have to be a long time radio ham to understand.

    HQH 🙂

  30. buckeroo says:

    actually, Global warming is caused by the Norse god “skippy” who goes around stealing barbie dolls and also puts turtles on their backs. Skippy is mean so he purposely disassembles Reeses peanut Butter cups and smashes skittle until they cry.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5584 access attempts in the last 7 days.