‘The sun goes blank again during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century’

Via: http://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2016/6/23/1015-am-the-sun-goes-blank-again-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century

By Meteorologist Paul Dorian – Vencore, Inc.

The latest solar image is completely spotless for the second time this month; image courtesy NASA

The latest solar image is completely spotless for the second time this month; image courtesy NASA

Overview
For the second time this month, the sun has gone completely blank.  On June 4th, the sun went completely spotless for the first time since 2011 and that quiet spell lasted for about 4 days.  Sunspot regions then reappeared for the next few weeks on a sporadic basis, but are once again completely missing from the surface of the sun.  The blank sun is a sign that the next solar minimum is approaching and there will be an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.  At first, the blankness will stretch for just a few days at a time, then it’ll continue for weeks at a time, and finally it should last for months at a time when the sunspot cycle reaches its nadir.  The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place around 2019 or 2020. The current solar cycle is the 24th since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began and is the weakest in more than a century with the fewest sunspots since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906.

Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC

Sunspot numbers for solar cycles 22, 23 and 24 which shows a clear weakening trend; courtesy Dr. David Hathaway, NASA/MSFC

Solar cycle 24
We are currently more than seven years into Solar Cycle 24 and it appears the solar maximum of this cycle was reached in April 2014 during a spike in activity (current location indicated by arrow).  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.  The peak of activity in April 2014 was actually a second peak in solar cycle 24 that surpassed the level of an earlier peak which occurred in March 2012.  While many solar cycles are double-peaked, this is the first one in which the second peak in sunspot number was larger than the first peak.  The sunspot number plot (above) shows a clear weakening trend in solar cycles since solar cycle 22 peaked around 1990.

While a weak solar cycle does suggest strong solar storms will occur less often than during stronger and more active cycles, it does not rule them out entirely. In fact, the famous “superstorm” known as the Carrington Event of 1859 occurred during a weak solar cycle (number 10). In addition, there is some evidence that most large events such as strong solar flares and significant geomagnetic storms tend to occur in the declining phase of the solar cycle. In other words, there is still a chance for significant solar activity in the months and years ahead. The last solar minimum phase lasted from 2007 to 2009 and it was historically weak. In fact, it produced three of the most spotless days on the sun since the middle 1800’s (bar graph below).

Top "sunspotless" days since 1849; the last solar minimum phase produced 3 of these years

Top “sunspotless” days since 1849; the last solar minimum phase produced 3 of these years

Consequences of a solar minimum
Contrary to popular belief, solar minimum is not a period of complete quiet and inactivity as it is associated with numerous interesting changes.  First, cosmic rays surge into the inner solar system with relative ease during periods of solar minimum.  Galactic cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system must propagate upstream against the solar wind and a thicket of solar magnetic fields.  Solar wind decreases and sun’s magnetic field weakens during solar minimums making it easier for cosmic rays to reach the Earth.  This is a more dangerous time for astronauts as the increase in potent cosmic rays can easily shatter a strand of human DNA. Also, during years of lower sunspot number, the sun’s extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) drops and the Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and contracts. With sharply lower aerodynamic drag, satellites have less trouble staying in orbit— a good thing. On the other hand, space junk tends to accumulate, making the space around Earth a more dangerous place for astronauts.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Vencore, Inc.

#

Share:

1,256 Responses

    1. Yep they feed us distorted temperature data on their climate models they constantly shoving down our throat but don’t even talk about the sun and it’s strange cycles and activity.

        1. Yep. The Earth will enter into a cooling phase. Look up the Maunder Minimum. The academic proponents of anthropogenic global warming will do anything including removal of funding if any solar scientists make any reference to the Solar minimum cooling the Earth. Money talks and your career will walk if you talk:)

          1. the sad funny thing; it was some of these same “scientists” who filed the man made global cooling theory “the mini Ice Age” paperwork for science grant money starting the money for false data scheme that morphed into man made global warming. you know the idiots that declared war on “FREON” a brand name of coolant gases made by DuPont. Global man made cooling The Mini Ice AGE just 20 short years ago fraud at it’s best

        2. It does have an effect but when the EPS refuses to release its raw data to prove what it says . . . . Well we think they are lying. Not that our government has not lied to use before, but they have zero credibility.

            1. How close? Of course we are in the solar system. Take an astrophysics course in college prereqs are all calculus classes and 2 years of physics. Then you are allowed to talk

        3. Earth temperature varies cyclically between warming and cooling. Some of these “astronomical harmonics models” are: 9.1 solar/lunar tidal cycle, the 11.2 year Wolf sunspot cycle, a 20 year cycle, the 60 year Jupiter/Saturn Tri-Synodic Conjunction cycle, the 2000 year solar intensity cycle and the Milankovitch cycles of 26,000, 41,000, and 100,000 years. These cycles drive oceanic oscillations (PDO, AMO, etc.) and cloud formation.

          The dominant cycle is the 60 year Jupiter/Saturn Tri-Synodic Conjunction cycle. When Jupiter and Saturn align, they change the solar system center of gravity, drawing the sun closer to the inner planets and warming them. This cycle has been traced back for years hundreds of years and thousands of years ago it was documented in Chinese and other records and pagan celebrations.

      1. When I was a kid, we were taught that ALL heat on planet earth came from the sun. The sun isn’t just a contributor, it dominates everything climate-wise, and without it, we would be nothing but a frozen rock. So yes, you are right. We never hear about the sun because the climate alarmists want to blame human activity for any changes.

      2. Just started a book about a scientist who has been studying polar bears for 40yrs and says that the population is more than 4x what it was in the 70s as well he has proven that polar bears do not exclusively eat seals, but a much broader diet than most scientists will acknowledge…(he analyzes their poop) Quite fascinating read bc we hear all he time how all science shows…

  1. Cosmic rays can also assist in cloud formation by providing nucleation sites (from ionization) for droplets to form. Clouds block incoming solar radiation, therefore cooling the atmosphere.

    1. Yup. Henrick Svensmark’s work, and that of others, have demonstrated that connection of solar activity and our climate. IPCC, of course, ignores it.

    1. If the benefits of staying were so damn great, I’m sure they would have remained, and continued to support the world’s parasites. Nothing but blue skies ahead!!

  2. One wonders if that’s why the last several tornado seasons have been a total flop. How many years now without an authentic fujita F3? Last F4 or 5? Tuscaloosa? I’ve put my tornado chasing equipment in storage and bought a new bowling ball.

  3. So much for obama’s global warming. Back to coal to keep us warm. Just got to get him out of office.

    Hillary likely has stolen the sun spots to sell.

      1. Barry of “skyrocket” days remains as clueless as ever. On the immigration loss at SCOTUS, he whines wah wah wah if my nominee was in place, I woulda won. Oh really? How do you how he would have voted? Because if you traded the nomination for a deal on pending cases, that’s a crime, Mr. Constitutional “professor”

    1. Last time a Clinton was involved in spots they were all over a blue dress. The liberals all thought that was great. They even named a 24 hour news channel after him Clinton News Network, (CNN).

        1. Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White places for Everybody?

          When is diversity or mass immigration or so-called anti racism ever demanded of any non white peoples anywhere?

          If diversity is such a strength, why is this “gift” given to European populations only, when there are so many non white populations that
          “need” it much more?

          Diversity means chasing down the last white person.

          It’s white Ge no cide

          1. Federal-mandated diversity is great for lefty politicians but not so much for little girls:

            –The Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho has taken the highly unusual step of intervening in a local criminal case involving an alleged sexual assault by juvenile Muslim migrants and threatened the community and media with federal prosecution if they “spread false information or inflammatory statements about the perpetrators.”

            WND and other news outlets have reported on the case involving three juvenile boys, two from Sudan and one from Iraq, who allegedly sexually assaulted a 5-year-old special-needs girl in the laundry room of the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho.

            The incident occurred on June 2, but did not come to light until more than two weeks later when stories began to swirl on social media.

            The two older boys from Sudan were arrested on June 17 and released from juvenile detention less than a week later on June 23 pending further court proceedings.–

            http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/06/explosive-new-twist-in-idaho-sex-assault-case/

            1. Well, if they are guilty without a doubt, the community has the responsibility to snuff them out! Where they’ve come from, the communities stone people to death for whatever the imam decides! Raping a five year old is probably just a misdmeanor in their culture! I have no faith in government sponsered diversity either! Government sucks a protectiing the good people and innocents!

              1. Then I guess that the US military personnel that raped the Japanese woman needs to be snuffed out as well, correct? Let’s not forget all the military females that have been raped by their male counterparts as well. Let’s snuff all of them out as well, especially since the US military does not hold themselves any more accountable than the rest of this POS government! Why don’t you tell our Saudi supporting government and all the George Bushes of the world to hold Saudi Arabia RESPONSIBLE for 9-11 then I will believe in the USA. USA of HYPOCRISY.

                1. Well, if they are guilty without a doubt; then yes, they should be snuffed as well! As a a minimum they should get their johnny wacked off, because not all societies have capital punishment! Maybe the victim should be able to decide! Unfortunately for you, I’m not the one that can help you! And, I’m not your hypocrit!

            1. Classic statement, although we do have our own share of piss stains, I mean golden paint sploshes, on the white canvas. However, since the massive influx of these middle easterners and others began in such high numbers, the crap stains, I mean brown paint sploshes, on the white canvas are overtaking the golden ones! No culture is perfect, but their’s is certainly several hundred centuries behind! More like jackasswards I’d say!

              Fight back America and Europe, don’t take this crap on your white canvas!

              1. Do you really think these people want to be in a society of haters? I apologize to each and every one of the Muslims, Iranians, Iraqis, Africans, and all the rest of the races around the world that our USA government is 100% RESPONSIBLE for the turmoil in their countries. How many countries call other countries TERRORIST, and then go arming every terrorist nation in the world with the only thing the USA knows how to make and that is WEAPONS to MURDER innocent people for rich, white men and women’s greed. It SUCKS to be an American! I am waiting for the takeover by any country, can’t be as lame as the US government.

                1. I think you’re misdirecting your rage. You’re preaching to the chior as
                  far as I’m concerned, and making alot of assumptions that you’re the
                  only one that cares! Unfortunately Mr. Trump is the only candidate that might be able to make positive change on a road to recovery as a nation! There are others, but they don’t stand to get elected. If Mr. Trump cannot be our tool for positive change, then the gig is up! Afterall, as you well know we’re long overdue!

          2. Good and interesting points, something that would never make it into a liberal’s space filled mind! Liberals don’t have pea brains as some have claimed; they have these huge space filled ones where you used to be able to fly a kite or bottle rockets! But now-a-days you can send off rocket ships in there to other realms of their fantasy universes. Kites, to Bottle Rockets, to Rocket Ships, that’s progressivism for ya!

          3. It is funny how the people of color have run wicked imperialist white people out of their countries but now feel entitled to unfettered access to the countries of those white people.

          1. Let’s speak the truth, shall we? David Patraeus, resigned into early Mil.Gov retirement on $250,000 a year pension, free Tri-care, and free Space-A travel anywhere he wants to go shopping, fined $100,000 that was paid for by taxpayers, and got two years ‘probation’ with no parole officer, which he ignored as he’s already back on the shill circuit for the NeoLiberals. Nobody is following that story, unlike Snowden or Clinton.

            1. Apparently you aren’t happy with the punishment the General received. But I think you missed the point of the comparison of the consequences for the General and Snowden vs clinton. Are you happy clinton has been punished not at all for her egregious criminal assault on our National Security?

              1. The simple fact is that both generals Patraeus and McChrystal were sacked because they were suspected of having political ambitions – Republican political ambitions. Their “violations” pale into absurd insignificance when compared with Hillary’s handling of TOP SECRET documents, which are now most assuredly in the hands of the KGB/GRU and the Chinese intelligence services, both of which are now licking their chops at having Hillary the Hideous in the White House and under their full control.

                “Hey, Hill, this is Vlad. How ya doin’? Hill, we need the exact grid coordinates of all your anti-missile sites, and I mean right down to the last centimeter. That’s right, every one in all the NATO countries and all the US sites. We also need daily updates on the locations of all your missile subs. And Hill, the Chinese are buggin’ me about delivering the stuff to them as soon as I get it.

                What? Hey, Hill, I don’t give any s— about your upcoming congressional elections. That’s your problem – what the hell, you’ve got every 120 year-old black and Hispanic voting for you; you can handle it. Now I that need missile information, and I need it right now. Got it?

                  1. Actually, she’s smart for wanting to confiscate all our guns if she happens to get into office. The likelihood would be that fewer of them would be pointed in her general direction.

                1. I believe your scenario has already happened which would make her a spy and an enemy of the state. That punishment doesn’t come with a fine.

              2. I would pay to see her roasted over an open fire but in reality she will be sentenced to a pedicure with a dull clipper by a heterosexual woman…and she will complain bitterly about it. Huma me on this.

                1. Wrong. “McHugh’s decision, approved by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, allows Petraeus to retain his full pension estimated at $208,000 per year, based on the military’s formula for calculating retirement pay. If the Army had docked him a star, his pension would have dropped to about $184,000 per year.” per USA Today article dated 2 March 2016.

                    1. NYT as backup ?
                      Martin may never sing Soprano a g a i n
                      the new york times is a fading URL tumbled out of sight – sound Thank-u-GOD

            2. And, the way things are going, Hillary is likely to walk away with no punishment, even though what she did was far more egregious than what Gen. Petraeus did. So, what’s your point?

                  1. i wouldn’t want her to go down on my dog, she would give him some disease, not to mention freak him out as the ugliest bich ever to try to go down on him

                1. Well, the media is indirectly pushing for it with a woman preident in ID4 and the new Supergirl season. They did something similar before the gay marriage vote.

              1. the smell of Democrats … lingers … like a family of skunks left on Highway #10 to dry to become nature itself
                time for the clintons to cash in THEIR chips 4 real gold

            3. Shall we, we shall:

              Petraeus misdemeanoris really minor compared to Clinton..He confined a secret to someone WITH THE SAME CLEARANCE AS HIM, whom he entirely trusted, and COULD trust.

              He also had a striling record of achievement.

              Hillary INSTRUCTS other people to shuffle around beyond top secret info on a Mickey Mouse server she set up in order to escape( illegally) scrutiny of her corrupt shennanigans.

              Hillary previous achievements is getting away with all her other crimes

            4. Don’t know where you get the $250K pension. Fact is that the max he can be getting from his military retirement is 75% of the statutorily limited base pay of $15,125.10 a month a four star can make. This would be a maximum of $136,125.90 a year. And, Tri-Care is not free — inexpensive perhaps, but not free.

              1. Actually, he retired at over 92% of base pay (new law allows 2.5%/year for time served up to 100% of base pay). Still, that equates to $169k/year, not $250K. Also, Snowden’s breach if FAR more serious than Petraeus. It’s one thing to give you mistress access to secrets (which, OBTW she had the clearance, just not the “need to know”) and dumping millions of pages into the public realm. And Clinton..we don’t know what was mishandled and may never. But TS/SCI photography doesn’t “accidentally” make it’s way from classified systems to a private, commercial server without human intervention.

                1. Didn’t know about the change in the law. And, don’t disagree with anything else you say. Just wanted to point out that peedee is letting his/her fingers type faster than his/her knowledge should let them. Premise of the Tad Gnarly post is pretty much spot on. HRC will get away with everything even if she loses the election. Lots of time for an Obama pardon between 9 Nov 2016 and 20 Jan 2017.

                    1. 50% of base pay at 20 years. An additional 2.5% per year for each year served past 20 years to a maximum of 75% of base pay.

                1. And what tax-free under the table money is that? Son of retired military, brother of two other retired military and none of them got tax-free under the table money. Tell me where it comes from so they can get their share.

            5. Patraeus heinous crime was sharing his personal calendar with his girl friend who also had very high security clearance. Clinton’s crimes are much much worse.

              1. Not to mention, she was the war correspondent that was with him in Iraq, and she was working on a book about the time spent there. That’s all this was – book research with an old war buddy.

            6. Sorry, but Tri-Care is not free, nor is Space “A”. Shills like you spouting things you no nothing about because you never served makes you look stupid. His fine was NOT paid for by the taxpayer unless you consider EVERY dollar he made as a taxpayer dollar and that his service during that time was for naught. See, he served his country for 20+ years, EARNING every dollar he was paid.. EARNING!! By working 12+ hours a day, sometimes for weeks at a time like the rest of us do and did. And how do you know about his probation rules and whether he followed them? Did SOMEONE else tel you that to repeat like a good little shill???? How much of what you just spouted out was based on researched FACT and how much was just left wing bull-fertilizer hearsay?? What a baffoon you have turned out to be!

            7. Unless the military has drastically upped their pay scales, I don’t think he ever made $250k/year. Maybe he did with housing benefits, combat pay and per diem for working overseas. At thirty years, a military member retires at 70% of their base pay which does not include housing, combat, per-diem or any other type of pay. My guess, without looking it up would put him around 100-150k/year. Feel free to enlighten me. I’m a retired military officer so I have some familiarity with the subject.

            8. well that’s hills gravy train the shill ckt! as for his so called crime he handed over just a few classified info about the war to his mistress hillary has over 2100 emails hooked to a unsecure server linked to her foundation! are you so dense or don’t care that she probably sold those secrets for donations or that most of those donations are coming from foreign entities especially china she met up with while running state! as for pratreus he earned his pension what has hillary earned?

            9. and he doesn’t have to be president either. It only took what 5 years for the justice department to close his case file so he could apply for security clearance again.

            10. Go serve in the Army for 20 years and you will get Tri-Care too…its not all that great actually. And space A, lol…..its not worth it…if you have a week to get to Tulsa via Michigan, and stay up for three days, ..hey its great! You are an idiot. Oh, and no Govt worker ever got 250K….are you from Colorado? YOu must be smoking.

            1. And never forget what Gore Vidal always said about the USA. The USA of Amnesia. How long til the lights go out and China takes over? Keep up the illegal wars and it will happen sooner rather than later. An empire cannot stand.

              1. I think you’re misdirecting your rage. You’re preaching to the chior as far as I’m concerned, and making alot of assumptions that you’re the only one that cares!

          2. There is also Assange..

            In fact you cannot “steal” a document really, you can only copy it which means changing its viewership
            Which is what assange did really..he didnt steal any of the cables he just made them visible to the rest of the world..just like Hillary.

          3. Edward Snowden is a hero; and anyone that thinks less, is someone that is willing to give away every right we have as a human being, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be put into the photo. Then you would have a complete lineup (taking Snowden out of the picture) to stand before a firing squad for ALL their treason, lies, and terrorism. Obama should be charged as the biggest war criminal in history. He is starting to make daddy Bush look like a choir boy. I know most are either too young or has the standard USA of amnesia syndrome to remember when Daddy Bush ran Iran Contra our of the VP’s office while Reagan slept or stuffed himself on jellybeans.

            1. The issue is handling of classified material. Why don’t you take your “I hate Bush” hobby horse somewhere where that is the topic rather than trying to hijack a thread where the majority of commenters don’t wear tinfoil hats?

              1. I guess a CIA official that is put out to the public by Dick Cheney and Robert Novak wasn’t considered REVEALING classified information? Why the hypocrisy? Talk about the tin foil. You need to remove it from your brain and remember past history instead of the BS you are fed by this POS government and media? Why don’t you ask Valerie Plame about classified information being given out by the Bush administration. Call a spade a spade. Mine is based on fact, what is yours based on? Flawed logic?

          4. “Break classification rules for the public’s benefit, and you could be exiled.
            Do it for personal benefit, and you could be President.”

            — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) June1 2016

          5. This makes perfect sense to all the liberals out there who are capable of “cognitive dissonance” (the ability to maintain belief in two or more opposing ideas or concepts simultaneously within the same brain), which turns out to be all of them.

      1. And she blamed it on the vast right wing conspiracy. So apparently Newt forced Bill to come on Monica’s dress then hid the dress for evidence later! Sounds like the right wing conspiracy alright!

        1. I’m sure you tried to say something intelligent, it just didn’t come out that way. Perhaps if you rephrase this I could figure out what side you are taking or what your point is.

      2. RayGun. . .
        Good Point. . .but I think the article was “Sun Spots” not “Some Spots”. . .LMAO Hehe

        But then I recall the immortal words of Crooked Hil-LIAR-Y:
        What Difference does it make. . .
        Cosmic Rays from Sun Spots or Comic Spray for Some Spots

        As for Obama, He blames the lack of spots as George Bush’s fault.

            1. Ironic that a Nazi would support Israel 100% but it’s probably all part of some elaborate con game, then again with Trump you never know…

        1. I’m sure Brother Al would agree as he has made a fortune saying quite loudly that the world is ” Burning with a FEEEEEEEEEEEver !!

    2. Why do you ignorant right-wingers always have to bring politics into every discussion? This story has absolutely nothing to do with American politics so unless you actually have something intelligent to say, which I highly doubt, buzz off!

          1. From Barack Hussein Obama on the topic of sunspots:

            “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”
            -Barack Hussein Obama, in his book, The Audacity of Hope, 2006

            “Barack Obama was steeped in Islam. He knew a lot about Islam from his childhood. But he knew very little about Christianity.” — Rev. Jeremiah Wright to author Ed Klein, 2012

            “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”
            – Barack Hussein Obama, Cairo speech, 2008

            “ISIL is not Islamic.”
            – Barack Hussein Obama, speech September, 2014

            “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet Of Islam”
            – Barack Hussein Obama, United Nations speech, 2012

            “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”
            – Barack Hussein Obama, speech in Turkey, 2009

            “The number of Muslims in the U.S. would make America one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,”
            – Barack Hussein Obama, JERUSALEM – 06/03/2009

            “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”
            – Barack Hussein Obama, June 28, 2006

            “We don’t have a strategy (to fight ISIL)…”
            -Barack Hussein Obama, remarks to reporters, July 2014

            “We have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam”
            -Barack Hussein Obama, French TV

            20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam and Mohammed

            #1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”

            #2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

            #3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world including in my own country.”

            #4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

            #5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

            #6 “Islam has always been part of America”

            #7 “we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”

            #8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

            #9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

            #10 “I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.”

            #11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

            #12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”

            #13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”

            #14 “Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

            #15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

            #16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

            #17 “I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month.”

            #18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants, farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”

            #19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

            #20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”

            1. SLAM!! I love comprehensive reviews of the Clueless In Chief…..regardless of the topic at hand. It’s odd the libbies that never tired of dragging either Bush (I or II) or Reagan into any conversation are now suddenly upset.

            2. I had no idea how brazen Obama’s support for Islam has been. I remember some of these quotes, but seeing them all together is rather telling of where his allegiance lies. I don’t think America is part of that allegiance. I hope Trump can sweep in and end the foolishness that has taken over our country. We have forgotten who we are. I believe Trump can fix the sunspots too! (tie-in to article)

            3. Obama is right everyone. Quit trying to put down a man of genius. Our founding Fathers all bowed to Mecca 5 times a day 5 TIMES A DAY .Yes cut out of our history books by right wing goose stepping Neanderthal crazies.

          2. Most of my physical science professors, full, associate, adjunct, are politically liberal/ progressive. So the safe presumption is that what we find here is a witches coven of redneck Republicans with more nyah- nyah attitude than space science knowledgability.

            1. Actually, the vast majority of our math and science profs are center right because they lean toward verifiable data over emotion. But you couldn’t get in here anyway.

              1. Your boast of emotionless center- right cyborgs in numerous positions of academic authority is an unsuportable assertion. The turgid rigidity of politically conservative thinking has blighted many lives, but seldom actually accompanies innovative scientific thought and accomplishment. Of course an admission that this is generally accurate by politically reactionary trolls of the sort on display here is not expected . Would you like to extol the mindless presidential actions of G.W.Bush? I would enjoy further comic relief from the bunkers of conservative trolldom.

                    1. No Jay please tell us more of your liberal education. Tell us how your professors extolled the virtues of Che and how buying toilet paper in Venezuela is a grand experiment in humanism. Maybe it is because of rightwing control that the oil rich South American country that had nothing but a bright future with a well educated and a peaceful and healthy population was destroyed by liberal ideology.

                    2. Wow, yoo are having a little self-pity-party….’better go full-tampon instead of the pad, El Jay-bo.

                    3. oh wow, Aunt Flo, ‘really go you down theese month…”better switch to tampons, because the pads aren’t working, El Jay-bro.

                1. Says the person that has every aspect of human innovation harnessed and regulated by the leftist elite. The time you spent perfectly wording that post could have been spent learning about how you are being controlled.

          3. Never mind cdw Chrisy, you go and fly your little rocket ship off the the sun! Maybe there’ll be a few spots left for you before you get there. Be sure to pack a lunch, its a one way trip! Bye bye! Get a life and half a brain!

      1. Oh, no. The common-ists have been beating the “anthropogenic global warming” drum as a foil for a government takeover of energy production and distribution. They are the ones politicizimg the discussion.

        1. And once again, that opinion may or may not be true but in any case it has NOTHING to do with this article. I might as well comment on the danger of high fructose corn syrup. Stick to the topic and stay out of the weeds or go to Fox news to post your stupid comments.

          1. Just like a leftist. All for freedom of speech, as long as it’s yours. Eff you lefty. You don’t get to decide what others talk about so just eff off, eh.

          2. my my Chris is a bit slow in our book, of course this effects the discussion on man made climate change, that is the point. Facts once again are pesky things…

          3. You go to Faux News, if you think it’s so great smarty pants, oops, sorry, I mean smarty skirt, which is it anyway? Oh, whichever!

      2. Since liberals have politicized the climate to no end, when news comes out casting further doubt on AGW, liberals are going to hear about it.

      3. What is the significance of reduced sunspot activity on conditions here on Earth? How does that affect human circumstances? Is there a relationship between human circumstances, particularly with respect to the effects of reduced sunspot activity and politics? Educate yourself, Chris, before you call others ignorant.

        1. The sun is covered with elemental silicon, a good conductor of electricity. A sun spot is a hole in the surface that blasts energy and of course electricity into space. Science as usual doesn’t know the cause of the sunspots though they can generalize. The problem for the Global Warming Freaks is that an empty Sun, as this article calls it, is radiating less heat which in theory would cause the earth to cool. Fortunately there is an offsetting mechanism called GCR or Galactic Cosmic Radiation. This radiation increases as the sun weakens as spoken of in this article. The GCR increases the cloud cover on the dark side of the earth helping the earth retain heat. (Cosmic Rays can cause saturated air to form tiny water droplets as in a cloud chamber). Even the UN feels that GCR may be one of the main factors in the fluctuation of the Earth’s temperature. BTW ice ages seem to depend on our position in the galactic spiral arm, and not on CO2 content.

          1. Agreed, Perry and something Chris, above, clearly doesn’t understand–I was trying to help him/her make these basic logical connections.

            1. We come to the truth in our own way. Some of us are dragged kicking and screaming. 🙂

              Since the original argument for CO2 and global warming was based on statistics, the sunspot explanation is particularly delightful. The solar physicists explain it fairly well in the article – less solar flux -> more gamma/cosmic radiation -> more high level cloud nuclei -> higher albedo -> cooler temperatures.

      4. Wouldn’t you say liberals wanting to pass laws to lock people up in jail for disagreeing with man made global warming that isn’t politics? When some sick bastard goes on a killing spree they don’t politicize it for every second they can???

      5. Since you don’t like the comments by right-wingers, what would a wrong-winger like yourself? What sort of comment would you like to leave on an article about sun-spot activity?
        Maybe “wow, gee whiz”
        Or “will this effect my tan”
        How about “what can we blame this on that isn’t true, but we could lie anyway”
        I eagerly await your reply

      6. Because it was linked on the front page of Drudge. Drudge readers are a very peculiar bunch. They love to congregate in comment sections and reinforce their far right, conspiratorial, ill informed opinions. Each upvote causes them to pat themselves on the back and makes them think they are right. It’s a lot of fun to watch. They say that liberals are dragging the right wing kicking and screaming into the future. If you want to see the actual kicking and screaming, click on ANY Drudge story and scroll down.

      7. We do it to beat the Leftards to the punch. Every time we do(which is not very often), they start complaining that “right-wingers bring politics into every discussion”. It’s as predictable as clockwork.

      8. Did you fail to see the part where it states lower sunspot activity results in cooling of the upper atmosphere? This is contrary to the settled seance of AGW?

      9. There are no ‘wingers’ here Chris, so you can drop the false indignation. Anything that has to do with climate (is the Sun’s activity not responsible in large degree, for Earth’s climate…?), is immediately co-opted by the AGW crowd and used as a weapon to bludgeon both the naive and the stated ‘enemy’ (‘climate deniers’…)

        No Chris, AGW has ~Everything~ to do with ‘Politics’ by virtue of the fact that the entire concept was Political at birth to begin with…

      1. you drudgetards are so obsessed over Hilary and Obama, yet you allow them to rule over your? why don’t you do something about it wwith your second amendment rights

        1. We outnumber you. You’re super lucky that “drudgetards” are a peaceful people, but keep pushing until we’re not. We’ll go all Return of the Jedi on your Empire.

        2. You seem to be another “drudgetard” to whom you so affectionately refer. Always happy to have one more sane person who recognizes the criminality and destructiveness of Hillary (it’s spelled with two “L”s) and Ohbongo.

    3. Ordinarily I would say the scientific facts would stand at face value and as the fascist left would say, the reason for climate change is settled. But, in this world today’s democrat leftist often believe facts contrary to their talking point, don’t matter.

    4. The Grifters have only 208 days left in the White House….then they gotta start paying their own freight…and I doubt that moocher-in-law will be shackin’ with them in Hawaii.

    5. Obama’s global warming will force them to tax solar energy.
      Look at how some states are doing a pilot on taxing mileage to keep the roads fixed.

      This stuff is worse than the tax on tea.

    6. Please understand that AGW is not a scientific fact but instead is a political ruse intended to control your life. Think alcohol in gas, shutting coal so as to force building of solar and wind energy production. Establishment politicians and the rich donor class that finance them is making billions on your back.You are now being asked to give your money from “victim” countries that will suffer from AGW. This is a massive con game.

    7. She was jealous that they outshone her so she decided to have them eliminated. Funny how a guy could shoot himself twice in the head…

    8. Yeah, but unlike the other two, Hillary is SUPER-HOT!
      Can’t wait to gaze into those sexy eyes for the next four years…
      Viva la Stupid American voters!

    9. Spotless does not (necessarily) mean lower heat radiation. I have found nothing that says the UV or IR has decreased, or increased. It just says that it is less active (or) less variant.
      In the past I have read that solar flares (especially larger flares) cause more damage to our skin and to our atmosphere – therefor – I can only “GUESS” that no flares and fluctuation means less negative reaction to us here on earth. – – – Maybe?

    10. I just… what…? Why do you Drudge-Drones have to make everything political. In the name of all that is holy and not, this is an article about sunspots. You people are completely obsessed.

  4. Daily Caller 2016/06/23
    Nearly two decades and $108 million worth of “disturbing” data manipulation with “serious and far ranging” effects forced a federal lab to close, a congressman revealed Thursday.

    The inorganic section of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo. manipulated data on a variety of topics – including many related to the environment – from 1996 to 2014. The manipulation was caught in 2008, but continued another six years.

    1. They heard about the Clinton’s SLUSH FUND! They wanted their own Slush Fund…betcha the whole Congress has their own “charity”. Like that person head of the Food Stamps in her city, made a killing for herself with them. If you don’t have a Gruberment Job…you can get in serious trouble for starting your own Slush Funds.

    1. Obama has already saved the planet. Global Warming stopped even before he assumed office. We might even be able to blame it on George W. Bush 🙂

  5. No need to worry. Saint bary obama will save the world ! After all, he walked all the way from Hawaii to the mainland to bless us with his presence.

  6. let me guess, obongo claims he can fix this by further flooding the us with illegals& terrorist muzzies then blaming Americans for’ driving suvs.

  7. Whether the weather be hot,
    Or whether the weather be not,
    We weather the weather,
    Whatever the weather,
    Whether we like it or not.

  8. Hilarious no info rwnjs think this story has anything to do with our climate change. Jesus you people justparrot whatever the F foxnoose breitbart and drudge tell you. Its pretty sad how easily you people are controlled.

    1. The hypothesis of man made co2 climate change has never and will never be subjected to the scientific method. It depends on money hungry “scientists” to call it a theory, corrupt politicians to call it a policy, gullible cool-aide drinkers to believe it, and the citizens to pay for it.

  9. Hey warmers: It’s the orange ball in the sky. The one responsibility for both weather and climate. AGW remains a myth. You really have nothing to hang your empirical hat on. And if you say CO2, I’m going to remind you that the real studies show that CO2 actually lags warming rather than leading it. Translation: It’s an effect, not a cause. But you go ahead and listen to that so-called 97 percent (of whom, 95 percent have no training in the field).

  10. Some expert predicted years ago an ICE AGE was returning amidst all the lying liars at the peak of the phony global warming sh it.

    Especially one Al Gored who should be in jail for his DAMNING lies that destroyed a lot of business IMO. I read the ICE AGE report and it made sense to me and after that I always believed that is what is COMING.

    1. Algore predicted the seas would rise 250 ft. in the next few years…then he went out and Bought an Oceanfront Mansion costing over $8 Million near Santa Barbara, Ca. Must not have been too worried. Plus Obama Stopped the Oceans RISING 250 ft. remember? Then He and Moo bought an Ocean Front Mansion In Hawaii right be for he got Re-elected. Theirs cost over $30 Million!

  11. Our Grubers in DC figured out that our Weather/Climate is connected to MONEY…TAXES…and Regulations. Now they are having a hard time “selling” their “scientific discoveries” to the American Citizen Tax Payers. They should have just listened to their ole Grannies, like we did. Granny always used to say…”Everybody always Complains about the Weather! But Nobody can do anything about it!”
    uh-oh…Can the Grubers send me to the Fema Camps for saying that?

  12. They said it would happen, and apparently it did. Pollution from fossil fuels finally reached the sun, diluted the amount of available oxygen in the solarsphere, reducing its ability to produce fire. This is the same exact thing that produced the last ice age. Mark my words, if the general weather patterns turn markedly cooler in the next 4-5 months, we have only ourselves to blame 🙂

  13. As an amateur radio operator for over 45 years, many of us have studied and understand solar activity because our overseas communications depend on the sun and its activity.

    There is something called a Maunder Minimum. It has, in the past, brought on mini ice ages.

    Also, these idiots that a predicting numerous power grid outages due to massive solar flares are full of it. (No late night radio talk show hosts need to be mentioned….) We have not had any flares in months! Yes, we have had disruptions due to solar winds. But the flares themselves have died away. So the scare tactic/clickbait in this article isn’t valid.

    1. Actually we’re due for a real ice age, not just a Maunder Minimum type. The present interglacial period is the longest by far in the past ten million years or so.

  14. Golly, could the sun just possibly have a greater impact on global climate than humanity? Don’t expect any rational thought from AGW luddites.

  15. So … all said our star has a profound effect on the weather of all the planets in our solar system. Is that why we call it our “solar system?” Question for you all…. Of Topic … The jet exhaust trails over the last 15 years have visually changed. They persist (do not evaporate) and during the day the sky fills with their expanded “clouds”. We can have a weather forecast of clear skys and by afternoon the sky is anything but clear. Why is it never mentioned the effect on climate this must be making all over the world??

    1. It probably does have some (albeit, small, in comparison to the sun) effect on the environment. Which is a bit ironic considering all the elites of the world flying in their private jets to climate change seminars and lecturing us to give up our own luxuries.

    2. I, along with others who are experts in solar activity, believe the sun is going nova. The whole “global warming”/climate change fiasco is a cover-up for a dying sun. With the sun going nova, more harmful ultra-violets are going to bombard the Earth. Someone has suggested that the “artificial clouds” created by the jets are to “reflect” ultra-violets away from our surface.

        1. Call them what you will. I really don’t believe they are carrying harmful chemicals, but reflector particles to ward off harmful ultra-violets. Question: Have you ever seen so many cases of skin cancer in your lifetime???

      1. If the sun is going nova, it will expand and gobble up the earth before it explodes. There would be nothing we could do to prevent or mitigate that outcome. Jet emissions, in that context, would be irrelevant.

    1. And a bunch of SUVs. The big luxury ones. Consuming the Sun’s energy…on the Sun’s surface! There also needs to be a ban on corporate Jets. Except for Hillary. She needs to give a speech there. A last one.

  16. NewEnglandPatriot,
    The hypothesis of man made co2 climate change has never and will never be subjected to the scientific method. It depends on money hungry “scientists” to call it a theory, corrupt politicians to call it a policy, gullible cool-aide drinkers to believe it, and the citizens to pay for it.

  17. Wait – they forgot to mention that this low activity is a result of global warming, err, or is it making global warming worse, err, or is it what caused Brexit to succeed?

  18. You guys getting this yet? The Sun is on some kind of WTF? activity loop. Whereas before the Earth could get by on large Green house emissions, now we can’t. We need to in all haste change what we are doing in order to mitigate what the Sun might do and is doing to global temperatures. This temperature spike is happening in our solar system.

    1. Short of terraforming you’re not going to be able to counteract the effect solar activity has on our climate. Good luck with that.

      1. Agree, Global warming, climate change is being sold to the peons as a problem we have control on, but must act soon. The reality is this is the Sun, and what was once a logical reason to reduce Green House gasses etc is turning into something else. A dire emergency to reduce anything in our atmosphere that will magnify the problems that our Sun may send our way.

  19. Sun cycles 24-26 bring a new grand minimum…it will be getting colder for the next 20-30 years. Less sunspots more cosmic rays and clouds that cools off the planet.

  20. Every single day now…We are learning how big a RACKET Gruberment IS. Must be nice. The Tax Payers are fewer and fewer today, and getting soaked with all the Multi Millions of Illegals Obama brings into our country, who hop on his O-Gravy Train. Nearly a Third of our Citizens 95 Million people, are permanently OUT of WORK…QUIT Looking…and never counted among the “Unemployment Numbers!” So the Gov. numbers are made up, kinda like AGW.

  21. No effects on global whastever though. The Warmer Cabal treats solar input as a constant. The sun could go out tomorrow and models would still predict warming and the cabalists would want you to send them all your money.

  22. Sun?

    What sun?

    The pendulum has merely swung and now it’s time to corner the carbon DEBIT market due to anthropogenic global cooling.

  23. Notice that the author completely ignores the fact that cosmic rays stimulate cloud formation by ionizing particles making them more attractive to water vapor. More rays equals more clouds equals cooler Earth.

    1. all part of the ‘quiet sun – cooler Earth’ totality, we could see a Maunder Minimum and severe cooling right as far as another Little Ice Age… or not

  24. And we are beginning to enter the minimum phase of a 206 year supercycle that will DROP temperatures worldwide, with the minimum temperatures in about 2030. Search GRAND MINIMUM and get the scary truth about what is going to happen to our climate.

  25. What does ol Al, Ol hillarries “Shame an snuff America partner” have to say about this ………and the other climate scare mongers? Should we burn more coal to heat the world back up to a perfect 98.6?

  26. The sun operates on a 360 year cycle with three phases: regulation oscillations, followed by a Grand Solar Maximum, followed by a Grand Solar Minimum. The last time there was a Grand Minimum was the Little Ice Age. The present phase began in 2009 with a new Grand Minimum now underway. Prepare for decades of colder winters reaching a bottom around 2040. Along the way there will be increasing fuel shortages, food scarcity, disease and loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while you can. No amount of pithy CO2 increase will change this inevitability.

    http://www.windpowerfraud.com
    http://www.aconvenientfabrication.com

    1. Nah, that’s bull shit. The sun is 33 miles in diameter and spirals around the north pole at an altitude of no higher than a few hundred miles. In the Summer, it’s making smaller, slower loops, but will gradually expand and speed up until it reaches the furthest distance from the North Pole—the Winter solstice.

    1. Global temperature going down

      You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. The first five months of 2016 are the hottest in the temperature record by the widest differential ever recorded.

  27. Obviously this is due to Anthropogenic Sunspot Depletion brought about by all the solar power installations that Obama’s cronies have been setting up to plunder taxpayers.

    1. I’m certain you have never been near a building or institution where climate modelling is successfully executed. If you knew the tiniest bit of information you’d know that computer models refer to hardware such as Dell, HP, etc. Last time I checked the current excess energy in our climate system falls within the 95% confidence interval of the range predicted by current modelling simulations. Obviously you’ll not care, because you don’t understand the models.

      1. I’m certain no one has ever been near a building or institution where climate modelling is successfully executed, because the climate has never been modelled successfully.

        1. If your research was as thorough as you imply, you should be turning up different results. Have any help/links from a scientist or scientifically literate person who knows what they’re doing?

  28. . . . yet not a word about “climate” or “weather” in the whole article. A serious oversight for an article in Climate Depot.

  29. We are peaked now at the warm part of the warm cycle of the 100,000 year Ice age cycles, Its a time when the weather hovers and changes more dramatically in our comfort zone, nothing to worry about except that Canada, Russia and and everything else above the 49th parallel is under a couple of thousands of feet of ice in a mere fifty thousand years from now. These are the good times folks, this report from one of the nations top notch geologists. Read the book “On the Trail of the Ice Age floods” by Bruce Bjournstad. Its fascinating and makes for Great vacation planning! That’s the only way to round out what your imagination cannot stretch itself around. See it with your eyes. tour it from Missoula Montana following the Columbia river and its surrounding flats and canyons down into Oregons wine country in the willamete vally and onto the mighty Pacific. You will know and believe. All else is politics for the minions and idiots. I know thats a bit rough on some people but really, read the factual accounting of this planets ongoing records of climate change and please, turn GORE off when he gets on his global warming rants, they are abusesof reality for abuse of your pocketbooks. Its possible we will survive because of coal and coal alone. A slight possibility but still a real possibility.. Open your eyes, see the real thing, rocks dont lie! Follow the Columbia river from Missoula Montana to the Pacific Ocean for a great family journey.
    Courtesy of Great Flood Wines, inc, @ Great Flood Wines dot com, (currently in the shop for design changes).
    Winesdotcomm represented soon…… , floods, find the wines, learn the truth!

    1. We are peaked now at the warm peak of the warm cycle of the approximately 100,000 year Ice age cycles

      Complete junk science and nonsense. First, we’re in an interglacial of the current ice-age. Second, the natural warming cycle peaked about 8 ka back and the Earth is in a natural axial nutation cooling orbital phase. d. Third, the planet is warming at unprecedented rates (30x natural) due to human induced CO₂ into the atmosphere. Fourth, we pay some very smart people to observe and research this phenomena.

      1. “Smart” does not mean “correct”. AGW predictions show this very clearly.

        30x natural, compared to what?

        The present warming trend started over one hundred years before any significant human CO2 output. And as a “warming trend” it is a paltry one degree C per century. The planet has been much warmer than this many times in the past; warm periods are always more stable and more conducive to the proliferation of life and civilization.

        1. They don’t say that they are correct but they do have the best explanation for the evidence. If they weren’t there’d be others publishing better unfalsifiable explanations and I’m sure there’ll be a few tweaks here and there but not the central theme. AGW predictions have all proven to be accurate … care to share which one/one that the theory predicted that didn’t materialize? What do you think 30x natural means … that is as clear as it can be to a scientist when discussing current extant and climate. It usually refers to the current ice-age. Your warming trend is pure vacuity and any glimpse at the ice core data will show you how inaccurate your statement is. The planet is in a natural cooling cycle so the current warming is unnatural. Your last sentence is a non sequitur and basically meaningless.

  30. If the Sun is a Nuclear furnace like the Main Stream Scientific Community tries to tell us… why does it weigh 1000 X less that what would be necessary for it to function ?
    How can Sun spots that are on or near the surface of the Sun be Millions of degrees cooler that what can be measured a million miles away from the surface ?
    How can the surface be 5000 degrees and 10 million degrees many miles away from the surface ?

    1. climate change ==

      “Let’s scare the living hell out of everyone and gain power, influence and money while pretending to do something about it! First we’ll start with catastrophic predictions in the short term, when those fail utterly we’ll push them back to the year 2100! All Hail Us! Savoirs of the Planet! “

  31. This is very interesting. Look into the mounder* minimum (mounder is spelled wrong) It suggests that the lack of activity on the sun correlates with global cooling (only speculation) but this lack of activity will solve or at least shed light on the mounder minimum. If you have a reflector scope get a solar filter and you can see the spots for yourself, you walk away with an absolute feeling of something waaaay bigger than yourself

  32. Science has become so dirtied and discredited because of the left that most intelligent people are readily going to point that fact out every time they get the chance.
    The new priesthood of a post modern world. Might as well be consulting the astrologers 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia.

  33. I’m not 100% sure on the science here but we know that somehow evil white men have done some kind of sh!t to the Sun.
    I think they’re trying to take down Farrakhan’s Mothership.

  34. No where does this article speak to the planetary effects (earth is of interest to me) of these solar minimums. Longer winters? Cooler summers? Wetter? Drier? Crop effects? Poor reporting.

  35. This article will only energize the “deniers” and, therefore, the writer should be cast into Hell. Climate change is caused by human activities. The Sun isn’t even on our planet.

  36. This is all because of Global Warming and the excessive use of windmills. The Windmills cool the sun and their vibrations cause earthquakes. When will you people listen??

        1. Perhaps. But Cleese and co. at least grasp climate science and speak rather eruditely on the topic. pays to go to good schools and universities even if they didn’t follow a science career.

  37. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

    The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

    He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

    Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

    Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

    Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.

    Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” (Psalms 2:1-12)

  38. Another “maunder minimum” coming along with global cooling. Perhaps this one will last more than 70 years. It is a good thing we heated things up otherwise this would be a catastrophe. Thank your industrial revolution kids.

  39. This is bad news for the global warming crowd. If the Earth gets noticeably cooler over the next few years, then how can they keep screaming that mankind is overheating the planet? Of course, they can lie about it like they’ve been doing since the beginning of this AGW nonsense.

  40. Oh my gosh! We are all doomed. It is global warming! or Global cooling! or Climate change! Or whatever the daily panic catastrophe from the demoncRAT liars is. We are all finished if we don’t vote demoncRAT. right? LOL Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Hey demoncRAT liars. We get it now. We will NEVER listen to you or the state press again. Get used to it. You better arm up too. Like we are. We are not afraid of you anymore. And We are not afraid to fight like you are.

  41. this couldn’t be correct? it goes against Obunghole and his minions narrative of global man made warming, you know the theory that caught weather scientists falsifying data, making up numbers, and changing climate figures going back 100 years to suit their fraudulent narrative

    1. caught weather scientists falsifying data, making up numbers

      You’re either delusional or a liar. Pick one. I’m sure you’ll demonstrate that I’m incorrect and cite the peer-reviewed science that you gleaned those pearls of wisdom from, right?

        1. Only an uneducated m0r0n who is obviously neither a scientist nor scientifically literate would be fooled by the fossil fuel shill Tony Heller (realclimatescience) who has never researched nor published one article about climate science using its given name or its pseudonym Steven Goddard. Heller/Goddard has had to issue several written apologies to NASA, NSIDC and NOAA for his pseudo-climate science alleging they were wrong over the years to avoid libel suits as he didn’t have the evidence to support his denier claptrap. The classic was he published an article titled “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered” in The Register on 8/15/2008. Goddard claimed that the NSIDC plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on 8/25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that “… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.” Anthony Watts May 17, 2016 at 10:10 am “Goddard has no presence here after he failed to admit to CO2 freezing out of air blunder a few years back.”

  42. they don’t want to admit the sun has effects on Earth’s weather. Just like Muslims don’t have an affect on Gay gun sales. Well everyone’s gun sales for that matter

    1. Nope. They understand thermodynamics and how blocking or making the path for outgoing IR longer causes the surface of the Earth to warm as our planet stays in energy equilibrium with space.

      1. No, they don’t understand that. Any legitimate thermodynamic study of climate would seek to understand the primary source first instead of wasting time looking at secondary effects.

        1. You clearly don’t understand the Earth’s energy balance. I suggest you visit NASA or NOAA websites that have very good lay person explanations. Hint: The moon’s surface temperature doesn’t behave the same as the Earth yet for all intents and purposes both are the same distance from the sun.

          1. The moon has the albedo of an ice cap, for one. It has month-long day and night cycles as well.

            But I’m sure what you’re”hinting” at is the moon’s lack of atmosphere, implying this is why Lunar surface temps differ from that of earth, ergo, climate scientists are totally legitimate in their study of earth’s atmosphere as it relates to climate.

            First, yes the study of earth’s atmosphere as it relates to climate is legitimate. My point is that, since it is by definition a secondary effect, all the data, knowledge, and understanding of it is worthless without an understanding and accounting of the Primary driver of climate, the Sun.

            Back to the moon. It has vast surface temp swings from day to night. This is partly because of the two-week long day, followed by two weeks of night. It is also because, as you hinted, there is no significant atmosphere.
            But a Lunar atmosphere would serve to regulate the vast temp changes, by acting as an insulator and causing dispersion. In other words, your “hint” demonstrates that atmospheric effects are dampeners, regulators, of extreme shifts that would be caused by the Primary. This is in direct opposition to the position of AGW proponents’ claims that atmospheric effects will be the cause of devastating shifts.

            tl;dr: wrong argument bro

            1. Clearly you have little grasp of AGW theory and the role of the atmosphere. Pretending atmospheric and climate scientists haven’t a grasp of the science is just crass ignorance on your part.

      2. What happened to runaway global warming?
        Global warming scientists said winter storms would be a thing of the past and kids won’t ever see snow again.
        What about all those predictions that arctic ice would already be all melted and permanently gone?
        What happened to the dozens of hurricanes they said would hit the US coastlines every season?
        What happened to all the predictions of accelerated rising sea levels?
        What happened to all the predictions of increased tornadoes, droughts, floods, disease, starvation, locusts….?

        Every prediction has been proven wrong.

        Is there anything that would invalidate their hypothesis?

        1. Do you always segue off-topic when schooled or lose a point?

          You have a long list of red herrings and straw man fallacies – a great indicator that the writer is a bull$h!tter! An informed person with integrity would state when prediction was made, by whom, and provide the evidence that it failed. So far everything I have reviewed has been coming in worse than predicted. What did the first IPCC report predict … how well has it fared? If you know the Q and A then it will be self-evident to you that you’re FOS.

          1. You can’t respond. Just like all global warming believers. Gotcha! You can only make personal attacks. I’ve played this game with you people many times. I have quotes, sources and you’ll just change the subject, never admitting you’re wrong.

            Name something, anything that would invalidate the hypothesis.

                1. Cupcake those were not personal attacks. You segued off-topic and introduced the straw man and red herrings. Am I supposed to pretend that didn’t happen?

                  1. It’s really sad so many people like you are so uninformed and brainwashed. They’ve been doing this since the early 1900s, switching between global cooling and global warming every 30-40, using the same language and scare tactics. The solutions are all the same: bigger govt, more taxes, less freedom. You should study history — of politics, not science.

                    1. Cupcake you are making up stories again. As to uninformed … it is evident that you have little science knowledge at middle school level. OMG, not this ancient trope again. It was Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, who advocated calling it “climate change” because it seemed less threatening. And the climate has indeed been changing over time, but not over the last few thousands of years, and never near as fast. And while CO₂ may have been a following indicator in the past, it is the leading cause at this time, as has been understood by atmospheric physicists for decades. I’ll ignore your opinion about taxes as it is not germane to the science.

                    2. In about 20 yrs, liberals will change back to global cooling and scare us with the coming Ice Age. It’s the sun, and solar cycles, not man-made CO2.

                    3. Science has no ideology. What bothers me more about the real morons who feed you this tripe is that we are launching ourselves into a new planet equilibrium that is unfriendly to our (human) and extant existence. We are in an ice-age. Current warming has nothing to do with sun or solar cycles … if that were true the planet would be in a long-term cooling trend thanks to the current axial nutation forcings and slightly cooling sun. You’re quite good at making up fairy tales. Unfortunately for you we know it’s the external forcing of human-induced CO₂ that’s causing teh unprecedented warming.

                    4. We’re in an inter-glacial period. The sudden and temporary emergence from Ice Ages has nothing to do with CO2 or man-made CO2.

                    5. Nope … your science is awful. We are in an ice-age, period. We’re either in an interglacial or a glacial. Climate has been studied for two centuries. The full theory of anthropogenic global warming was first formed in 1896. In the past 800k years or so orbital forcing factors (mostly axial nutation) would create shifts in temperature which would be greatly amplified by CO₂ being sequestered (cooling) or released (warming). CO₂ was the feedback on top of nutation, so the both of them were the major forcing factor. Atmospheric CO₂ content is close to 0.041%, a miniscule swing of ±0.01% during the past 800k years with orbital forcing has taken the Earth in and out of glacial periods.

                    6. We’re in an ice age? You can believe whatever you want to believe. It’s called summer.

                    7. It is winter in the SH, so what’s your point? No belief required … you just need to to a little more reading and pay attention in science class when you get to HS.

                    8. This is where you warmists ALWAYS bail:
                      1) identify something, anything that invalidates their hypothesis (global cooling or no climate change?)
                      2) what caused all the periods of cooling or lack or warming while CO2 was increasing? (you can’t because it invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is the main driver of temps.)

                      I have more, but know it’s a waste of time with you people.

                    9. Well glad to know you have more because so far you’re produced nothing but gibberish. I can’t answer (1) because you keep this hypothesis untitled so who knows what you’re rambling on about except you, perhaps? (2) makes no sense at all unless you don’t understand how seasons come and go and that we have two hemispheres, and that there is a dynamic weather system. Maybe your science is so poor you don’t know how to express yourself. The current warming is entirely driven by the external forcing of human-induced CO₂. I’m not sure you will be able to digest this but try Gillett et al (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050226) who show the human attribution of the warming trend to be 102% of observed warming from 1851 to 2010 and 113% of the observed warming from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together) .Take a very close look at Figure 1 which in (a) shows all forcings, (b) natural forcing only (declining trend i.e. cooling), (c) GHGs only and (d) aerosols only (also declining i.e. cooling).

                    10. The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.
                      ———–
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of weather.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of extreme weather.
                      Now they say CO2 is the biggest, imminent threat to life on the planet.

                    11. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    12. The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of weather.
                      Then they said CO2 is the main driver of extreme weather.
                      Now they say CO2 is the biggest, imminent threat to life on the planet.

                    13. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    14. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    15. The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.

                      How can you not know that? You just repeat what you’re told.

                    16. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    17. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name? Scroll up and check for the name of the hypothesis I supposedly proposed/used. If you can’t find it, i know you won’t, then you’re just been playing charades … but I’m game.

                    18. You’re evading everything. You’re losing big time. What do you mean by denier?

                    19. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name? Denier is a person who gainsays science.

                    20. Your hypothesis, you know the one where CO2 causes global warming? Cat got your tongue? Not capable of independent thought?

                    21. Making up stuff is not going to fly. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    22. CO2 causes global warming? Who’s the denier? You’re making warmists look really small.

                    23. I’ve done this before and know you can’t answer. It’s why AGW scientists never want to answer direct questions.

                      If it was true, scientists would present their case to world for scrutiny and everyone would believe it. When people hear opposing viewpoints, most people immediately disbelieve the nonsense. The data doesn’t exist.

                    24. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name? Spell out the hypothesis that I have stated. You can scroll through all our comments and then either point to what I have missed or acquiesce and move on as you’re unable to tell me or anyone else what hypothesis I’m supposed to be answering.

                    25. Everybody reading these comments can see you’re afraid to answer. Are you a liberal college professor or student?

                    26. Nope what comes across very clearly is you have an inability to express what you want to discuss. Puerile projection is so passé.

                    27. But evidence that challenges the prevailing theory bores Kate Marvel, who brushes it off by declaring: “No serious scientist truly believes that the slowdown in surface warming invalidates greenhouse physics.”

                      This is utterly superficial. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect are not the issue here. At issue is a whole series of more complex questions: whether the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is mostly attributable to human beings, whether that increase produces a large enough greenhouse effect to warm the planet, and whether any effect from carbon dioxide (which is actually a very weak greenhouse gas) might be offset by the enormous number of other factors in an extremely complex system. So to cite basic physics—a common trope of the warmists—is a glib and irrelevant answer.

                      Marvel goes on to assert that the pause in warming can be explained by “a massive increase in ocean heat content.” Well, all right, I suppose this is a plausible theory. But it is also a very new one—and only one of 52 different theories offered to explain the hiatus.

                    28. Very weak deflection. Where ever you sourced that from you were duped. What hypothesis … you remain coy … is there a reason you can’t share the name?

                    29. Your hypothesis. It sounds like you’re evading because you know you can’t respond.

                    30. Do you even know you own hypothesis? I suppose it’s too easy to refute since you’re not answering.

                    31. Most recent warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century followed by cooling for about 30 yrs (which triggered the switch to the coming Ice Age in the early 70s) and then some warming beginning in the mid 70s. Of course they changed the historical temps to erase the cooling.

                    32. You’re uninformed. Did you not know they changed the historical data to create the appearance of global warming?

                    33. It wasn’t just changed, it wasn’t done in secret, it is in the public domain with full methodology and reasons. If you think it was nefarious you’d better start assembling your research to rebut what was done. You probably haven’t seen the homogenization plotted against raw data … if you had you’d see that raw has a steeper warming trend. So what’s your point? Other than 1024 – to current showing that warming has probably been underestimated.

                    34. The first time was all secret. When it was discovered, they first changed it back without explanation. They also recalibrated many of the surface thermometers in the early 2000s to create the appearance of global warming. Mann wiped out the Medieval warming period and the little ice age to create the appearance of global warming. Did you not know of such things?

                      Still can’t answer any questions. What would invalidate your hypothesis? (Still too afraid to state one?) (ans. Hint. nothing. CO2 causes everything.)What caused all the historical periods of cooling or lack of warming while CO2 was rising? (hint, it’s not CO2!)

                    35. The big difference between you and me is that you only know one side, your side. It’s like you never heard any opposing viewpoints or the science behind it. We skeptics know all sides. You’re gullible, lack curiosity and don’t really care about the truth. Everything you’ve said, we’ve heard it before.

                      You still can’t answer those two:
                      What would invalidate the hypothesis (even yours)?
                      How to explain the periods (many decades) of cooling or lack or warming while CO2 was rising?

                    36. You are not a skeptic … you are a science denier. A skeptic understands the science whereas you’re clueless. BTW: true skeptics (scientists) have had 60 years or more to produce an alternate model and/or hypothesis to explain the unprecedented warming. Nothing has appeared in the peer-reviewed publications yet that was unfalsifiable. Your last question is not valid until you can show the data that has many decades of cooling. Your first one is still not clear … could you give the name of the hypothesis you want to discuss? Seems like you just ignored the excellent science paper I cited for you which would have answered your questions.

                    37. I think you’re ignorant. I think you people placed all your eggs into one basket (CO2) and are now paying the price trying to hold on to a discredited hypothesis.

                    38. You deflect again, why? Can’t find the decades of warming or what? Still can’t name the hypothesis you inconsistently but repetitively prattle on about. This is ignorance on steroids and I quote you:

                      The sudden and temporary emergence from Ice Ages has nothing to do with CO2 or man-made CO2

                    39. To repeat:

                      “No serious scientist truly believes that the slowdown in surface warming invalidates greenhouse physics.”

                      This is utterly superficial. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect are not the issue here. At issue is a whole series of more complex questions: whether the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is mostly attributable to human beings, whether that increase produces a large enough greenhouse effect to warm the planet, and whether any effect from carbon dioxide (which is actually a very weak greenhouse gas) might be offset by the enormous number of other factors in an extremely complex system. So to cite basic physics—a common trope of the warmists—is a glib and irrelevant answer.

                    40. whether the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is mostly attributable to human beings, whether that increase produces a large enough greenhouse effect to warm the planet

                      I already gave you the published peer-reviewed science that answered that posit … why are you repeating yourself and not reading the science?

                    41. You deny or gainsay what is explained by science from ignorance as you have neither education or knowledge..

                    42. Why won’t you answer?

                      1. What would invalidate your hypothesis?
                      2. What explains all the historical periods of cooling or lack or warming when CO2 was rising?
                      ——-
                      I’ve done this before with you people and know you people never answer. Never. You can’t, because it exposes all the flaws inn the hypothesis and your thinking.

                    43. You got to tell me what hypothesis. I’ve been waiting patiently for you to name the hypothesis but for some strange reason you are unable to say whether it is the Milankovitch hypothesis or gravity according to string theory or Clausius-Clapeyron hypothesis etc.

                    44. What would invalidate your global warming hypothesis? You know the one that says CO2 causes global warming?

                      I’ve done this before and know you’re unable and unwilling to answer and eventually you’ll just go away before you make a larger fool of yourself.

                    45. Still waiting. If CO2 causes global warming, but global temps fall or don’t rise with more CO2, doesn’t that invalidate it?

                      Did you hear about the 18 yrs and 9 months with no warming? It was called the hiatus and AGW scientists offered dozens of explanations, one being aerosols, but they realized it invalidated their hypothesis, so they just changed the historical temps instead, and viola!, global warming was back!

                    46. You got to tell me what hypothesis? I’ve been waiting patiently for you to name the hypothesis but for some strange reason you are unable to do so.

                    47. Read history. It repeats. It’s full of stories like this:

                      “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” — from an Associated Press report published in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 1922.

                    48. Where was that reported from in the Arctic ocean? You need to be specific as there was no way for the whole Arctic ocean to be incorporated in that statement as humans didn’t have the technology or observation posts.

          2. Here’s just one: “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

            David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

            1. I hate to share this with you but that’s not a climate science prediction but someone’s opinion which is meaningless. Predictions will be found in published peer-reviewed science journals.

              1. The peer-review proves for anything related to global warming has been corrupted. It’s much like Rachel Carson where it was a circular process with her friends and colleagues reviewing each other’s work.

                1. Absolute nonsense. It is quite obvious you are neither a scientist nor scientifically literate but rather obnoxiously nescient. Climate science is the only doubly peer-reviewed science thanks to the IPCC.

          3. The original hypothesis said rising CO2 will warm the polar regions.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of global warming.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of weather.
            Then they said CO2 is the main driver of extreme weather.
            Now they say CO2 is the biggest, imminent threat to life on the planet.

                1. I haven’t a clue of what you’re trying to express … you have written a load of gibberish. If you’re trying to regurgitate a theory or hypothesis then look it up and reference it and ask your question or pose your posit. Alternatively, is this some hypothesis you’re trying to formulate? If so I haven’t a clue what you’re trying to articulate … it’s a meaningless word salad.

                  1. The entire hypothesis is bogus. Since all their predictions have proven wrong, now they say global warming causes everything.

                    Name something, anything that will invalidate the hypothesis. Higher temps, colder temps, more storms, less storms, … anything?

                    1. What hypothesis? Why are you coy … they have titles .. I can’t guess which hypothesis you’re trying to articulate if you don’t spit it out. For example, the Attention Schema Theory (AST), developed over the past five years, suggests that consciousness arises as a solution to one of the most fundamental problems facing any nervous system: Too much information constantly flows in to be fully processed. The brain evolved increasingly sophisticated mechanisms for deeply processing a few select signals at the expense of others, and in the AST, consciousness is the ultimate result of that evolutionary sequence. If the theory is right—and that has yet to be determined—then consciousness evolved gradually over the past half billion years and is present in a range of vertebrate species.

          4. I been studying this since the late 90s. Yes I know all about the absorption properties of CO2 and albedo infrared….

            It’s a political issue, not scientific.

            1. If your research was as thorough as you imply, you should be turning up different results. Have any help/links from a scientist or scientifically literate person who knows what they’re doing?

      1. You do know that the cooling we have experience over the last 16 years corresponds statistically much closer to sun activity than with CO2 emissions right?
        Your 2nd grade science teacher was right, the Sun warms the Earth.
        4th grade science: when the Earth warms the hydraulic cycle incorporates more moisture to the atmosphere making more rain, reducing desertification, increasing plants, crops and habitat.
        6th grade science: CO2 in the atmosphere is part of the great carbon recycling machine that is Earth.
        8th grade science: Scientific method. in conducting an experiment or explaining a phenomenon, testing is critical. When a model is based on a hypotheses and it doesn’t work, either the hypotheses is wrong or the theory it is based on is wrong.
        9th grade physics: Gasses, which do not posses the surface tension, may cannot retain heat within themselves. Water as gas clouds have special properties see 4th grade science.
        10 grade biology: More CO2 along with H2O creates a special organic chemical soup that together with micro organisms and eventually plants leads to regeneration of soft fertile soils on the surface to further promote the phenomenon unique in our solar system known as advanced life.
        I would keep going, but it seems you couldn’t get past the 4th grade.

        1. You have a lot of anecdotal stories about your schooling which is a diversion from the topic. Can you stay on topic about unprecedented? And then tackle:

          You do know that the cooling we have experience over the last 16 years

          Care to share the peer-reviewed published science?

            1. That doesn’t show your assertion the cooling we have experience over the last 16 years. Have another citation/reference? Your graph shows the current unprecedented warming but as you don’t cite your source I don’t believe that is a global reconstruction, just the NH which would be incomplete without the SH.

  43. Hmm, another comment thread on a scientific, technical article littered with posts from idiots who can’t find anything else to discuss other than their stupid political leanings. This just goes to show how little education most people have. Mark Twain once quipped: “It is far better to remain silent and thought a fool then to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Clearly none of these posters has read Mark Twain either, let alone studied the intricate cycles of our sun. Typical.

    1. No, it shows we know something about politics and history. Some of the public doesn’t know the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. Everyone knows the sun revolves around the earth. So stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  44. Even the weather services are already predicting a cold winter coming up for much of the U.S. Get ready for a doozy, especially in places like the Midwest and Appalachians. Prolonged below zero temps are coming; say goodbye to your crepe myrtle and photinia.

      1. My friend’s ask as to why I want to retire in Florida. They say that it is too hot. Yet I can pull up the temperature on my phone and show them that it is 92° here right now with 72% humidity but only 89° in Florida with 60% humidity. Yet it was just snowing here 4 weeks ago.
        The winters are long and brutal. Your nose literally seals shut from the sub zero temps and it feels as if someone is whipping you in the face as soon as you walk out the door.
        Northern states should be deemed unfit for human occupancy from December to April.
        I wish that we could hibernate.

    1. You apparently are unfamiliar with temps in the north in the winter.
      That is why I am retiring to my Lake Davenport home from my Michigan home.
      You do not understand what grey dreary days are like for months on end, and what -28° with 30 mph wind feels like. It will kill you within 15 minutes if you are left stranded.
      I will take Florida with its yearly temperature swing of about 70° versus my present 120° swing.

  45. The scientific press often repeats that dark matter makes up “25% of the Universe” or that dark energy makes up “70% of the rest of the Universe.” To anyone familiar with plasma physics, it is well known that plasma makes up 99.99% of the Universe. It is a fascinating convergence that the amount of gravitational mass invented to save conventional theories is the same as the ionized plasma that is overlooked.

    Wal Thronhill
    http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/

  46. Global Warming is a terrible phenomenon. It now causes sun-spotless days. Obama told us he was the One the world was waiting for. He is here to tame the seas, the cause the tides to recede to to lower the sea levels. The Messiah act in strange ways that country folks like me cannot even contemplate. DC, NYC and coastal Elites, 93% Blacks, MSM know this messiah like no other.

  47. America 2.0 coming soon. All Whites, Montana Idaho is a good start. Every American city is pathetic with black, hispanic gangs, must be cleaned up ASAP. The Donald can’t start soon enough. I will volunteer for free to help the round up.

      1. Maine is on the way to being like W. Virginia. All those hard working fisherman put out on the streets to beg for their lively hoods because of the econut DemRats. In the mean time all the lib elites walk on in.

    1. Bovine flatulence is not a problem … you should have paid more attention from grade 3 science classes onwards and you’d know that bovine eructation is the cause not flatulence.

        1. Don’t know what you were reading but flatulence was never cited in science. Eructation yes and the dung itself to a lesser degree.

  48. This MUST be caused by Anthropogenic Global Warming… mustn’t it? We humans are just so awesome, so powerful! In fact, we’re about to blow ourselves out of existence with nuclear weapons…

  49. It’s clear we humans are responsible for this. We must take action now! The future of our solar system lies in balance. Contact your senator and congressman today !

  50. Capt. Ron
    Can any one out their contact al gore and ask to put up a rainbow
    That would prove that he has been put in charge of the climate makers, and I will buy him a beer for happy hour when he shows up

  51. There are solar cycles? Why didn’t all the Global Warming fanatics mention that? Couldn’t it be that cycles in sunspot activity might have something to do with cycles in global temperatures?

    I used to think sunspots were cooler regions of the sun (because they’re dark, see?). But after reading The Real Global Warming Disaster by Christopher Booker, I learned that sunspots are regions of GREATER sun activity. And that sunspots and cosmic ray activity have caused cycles in earth temperatures from time immemorial.

  52. Democrats will now switch to “global cooling” as a big threat. Populated areas will freeze requiring mass migration or, more likely, mass immigration from the warm countries in the middle east, think Islam. Democrats will start taxing citizens for not driving enough and not driving fossil fueled cars because they are contributing to global cooling. Democrats will insist that coal be burned everywhere to stop the horror of global cooling. They will claim that global cooling will contribute to “hail stone” hurricanes and will propose taxes to erect large umbrellas over our cities to deflect the hail. No matter what the weather or climate democrats will tax it.

  53. Must be the SUV pollution. Now the sun has a carbon dioxide problem! Global warming is now Solar System Warming! Must produce more carbon credits!

  54. Somehow, someway by some pixie dust and mental gymnastics the Walking Left (Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, et al) will try to exploit this for their political advantage. Let’s see how many days this takes. They’ll probably just end up blaming Christians when they have nothing to come up with.

  55. From the Scientific Journal Nature. Not qualified to explain the Theory. But can give you the gist of it. An Astrophysics theory was recently confirmed by actual observation. It was peer reviewed, and accepted. The Sun is expected to exhibit unusual activity cumulating in about a decade. It is expected to last for three decades. Of course, the Sun may have other plans. Anyway, if the Sun performs as expected the Earth will experience a three decade cooling cycle. However, nothing to presage an ice age.

    The Climate Change people will love the consequences. These changes will not be predictable. They will impact on Regional Areas. As they progress prior changes will change again. The idea of Four Seasons will be in constant flux.

    When the Sun ends this cycle things will settle back down over a fairly short but unknown time period. They don’t say but would assume the changes to be somewhat permanent or at least gradual.

    From the Governments point of view this is great. Can Tax every change, blame it on the worlds people. If not that then on Bush. Perhaps too Sarcastic?

    This will sure put a dent in the Global Warming scenario.

      1. When first coming across it made notes. That was about six months past. No longer have a subscription to Nature nor Scientific America. Google Astrophysics – newly confirmed theory. Most likely will find a reference without having to pay for it. Bring up “Quora Digest” and pose the question.

        By formal training an electrical engineer. Know enough to translate the mathematics into common language.

          1. Don’t be so damn lazy. If really concerned do something about it, look it up.

            Anyway, what does it matter. You have but three choices; It occurs, It does not occur, or some modification. Due to my age could care less, just found the Theory mildly interesting.

            Read the Democrat Party platform. Looks like they will be involved with climate change and global warming. Those opposing them will surely raise this Theory as a defense. So just have patience.

            1. I do find it amusing that people will produce and argue for results using opinion and hearsay, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the primary science sources. Quote and cite the primary source or STFU.

              1. Have a short memory do you? It came from the Journal Nature.

                Don’t know why you even pursue this line? It is of little importance as there is nothing you can do about it. You do have a way with adjectives, give you that.

                  1. First it was short memory, now lack of comprehension. Are you going to just fade away?
                    Well, looked up the notes. Sure enough wrote down the particulars. But guess what… not going to give it to you. Pick up the phone, call them, tell them what you are looking, ask for a reprint and pay for it just as I had to pay for the subscription. You are not only lazy but cheap. What other negative attributes do you have; sure there are many. You have got to be one of those inapt democrats! You have my condolences.

                    1. OK. I’ll take that as your admission and concession that you have no citation for your fabricated junk science. Time for you to acquiesce and move on. Your humiliation was firmly established several comments back.

                    2. Now you accuse me of junk science? Engineers do not do junk science, nor any science for that matter.

                      Want junk science? Look to the Global Warming and Climate Change idiots. Never a citation, never list qualifications, Never published in a Peer Reviewed Journal. Not one Astrophysicist among the lot. Even the Farmers Almanack employs two and have a forecasting accuracy of 87 percent.

                      Who denies Climate Change? Nobody. Any fool knows it will change with every breath.
                      Who denies Global Warming? Nobody. Been going in cycles for many millions of years.
                      Who denies Global Cooling? Nobody with more than two brain cells. It also cycles.

                      So what is denied? The idiotic conclusions is a good place to start. A complaint is made against too much CO2. Well guess what? It is real good for growing plants to feed a growing world population. The plants put off Oxygen which bind with other gases to help clean the air.

                      People are blamed for Global Warming and Climate Change? Why? Because governments can tax them. Can’t tax the real villains; The Sun. The Inclination of the Planet to the Sun. The eccentric wobble of the Planet. Volcanic eruptions, Periodic changes in Ocean Currents. These are primary. Mans activity is but a pinprick in comparison.

                      I do concede I have been responding to someone border line retarded.

                    3. Nice deflection to avoid a simple science citation. Your jejune, pleonastic, truculent jeremiad of junk science shows why engineers are not scientists and very poor at research. When will engineers realize that they are not automatically scientific polymaths? Anyone in a physics department will tell you that an alarmingly large fraction of the relativity-disprovers, climate-deniers and other cranks submitting unsolicited manuscripts with bizarre theories-of-everything describe themselves as “retired engineers”. And to confirm your ignorance and leave no doubt as to your scientific illiteracy you make a classic science blunder about plants and CO₂. Obviously, you’re clueless to the biogeochemical, energy, landuse and temperature autotrophic drivers necessary for photosynthesis to occur. CO₂ alone does squat and too much decreases nutrient and protein yields in C3 and C4 vegetation. Ever studied the PNL hypothesis? Obviously not … here’s some science now go educated yourself:

                      “Increasing CO₂ threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature, May 7, 2014, DOI: 10.1038/nature13179

                      Projections for conditions under increased atmospheric CO₂ (drought) make this problematic for crops. In addition, research is showing that rice will not germinate at 35°C or above, and that many important crops become less nutritious when grown in elevated CO₂ levels. Consider the effect on agricultural productivity of the 2003 European or 2010 Ukraine/Russian heat wave. Then there is the problem of pest migration due to warmer temperatures. It all adds up to a very murky picture for agriculture in the later part of this century. That should make you less sanguine.

        1. UAH and RSS satellite record shows 0.12°C/decade warming trend which is an unprecedented 30x faster than last four natural warming cycles. Observations and measurements show that human-induced CO₂ into the atmosphere is the external forcing responsible for this warming. Gillett et al (DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050226) show the human attribution of the warming trend to be 102% of observed warming from 1851 to 2010 and 113% of the observed warming from 1951 to 2000 and 1961 to 2010 (averaged together)

          1. Wow!
            I guess someone will have to explain to you how long satellites have been up there, and how short a time that is in geological terms.
            And as they keep tampering with the surface records…..

            1. It was you suggestion to Google satellite record … so what was your motive then to recommend that and now disown it? Your hearsay about tampering surface records is meaningless without verifiable evidence from authoritative sources which excludes the denierosphere.

              1. The satellite data does not confirm the surface record adjustments.
                I’m not disowning the satellite data, simply pointing out that it is the most accurate, but the period it covers is far too short to extrapolate any trends from.
                It can be both, accurate, and the period can be to short to predict any significant trend.

                You should learn a bit about science and logic.
                The satellite data covers 35 years, and the surface data is a massaged joke.
                Neither proves AGW in any way.

                1. simply pointing out that it is the most accurate

                  You’re either delusional or a liar or grossly ignorant. Pick one. The satellite data measures the mid-troposphere through microwave radiometers, and is actually significantly more difficult to interpret than the ground-based observations. The idea that the satellites are some kind of truth-o-meter is really not correct at all. The differences between satellites and the surface are limited to those regions of the earth that have variable land cover – like SNOW covered areas. The satellite algorithms assume a constant emissivity and well … that’s just wrong. The satellite data are the MOST adjusted data we have. It is such an indirect measurement (more calculations) and a relatively new science, so it became and remains the most fudged. Manipulated. Or are you going to call it massaged? If massaged, then you’re going to have to admit that other data sets are correctly adjusted or homogenized and stop using denier terms.

                  The rest of your comment is just pure bull$h!t and I must presume it is for the same reason you select to answer the above vacuity.

                    1. Mercifully you have escaped the ravages of intelligence due to suffering from cranium intra réctum since your youth. When you lose the argument do you always pretend that you have some knowledge when clearly you have squat as you so ably demonstrate repetitively.

                    2. Why are you so hate filled?

                      Is it because you finally understand the idea that 30 years of data does not confirm any long term trends?
                      I know math is hard for you drama types….

                    3. We have data going back millions of years from many sources. The satellite data track well with the better datasets … so your argument is moot.

                    4. <