What nice plots!
Looking at the cycles it seems as if our Texas bonanza years for
tropical
strays just follow the sunspot minima, at least this seems to be true over
the
last 39 years.
.............Chris Durden
Quoting mexicodoug <mexicodoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> Hi Paul,
>
> The Sun cycle has 11.1 year minima; mid 2007 had been predicted to be
the
> minimum of the most recent cycle. Haven't you ever heard of The
Butterfly
> Diagram? I hear the Sunspot activity (which are storms on the
orientation
> of the Sun's magnetic compass) can be predicted by how many "Monarchs"
> appear on the graph (Each Monarch is one Sunspot cycle). You can see it
> here at NASA:
>
> http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/longrange/butterfly.jpg
>
> This is almost like sitting around and predicting the price of oil by
> watching fours days of some stock market index. Today, Sunspot 978 is
> growning fast enough to be considered nearly an indicator of Solar Flare
> production, according to space weather. Sunspots had been detected as
you
> know throughout the few months period, however weak. And they are
expected
> to increase in coming months.
>
> American measured monthly averages:
>
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/AMERICAN_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT
>
> International measured:
> ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT
>
> October was a low month of average 0.9 Sunspot Number, but right now the
> Sunspot Number is a heafty 42.
>
> Best wishes,
> Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Cherubini" <monarch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To: "Leps List" <LEPS-L@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Global temperature could drop 1.5 degrees C (3 degrees F)
by
> 2020
>
>
> > Stan Gorodenski wrote:
> >
> >> The scientific accuracy of the article is highly in doubt. It begins
> >> with the statement Months have passed with no spots
> >> visible on its disc.
> >
> > Stan, the article was dated Dec. 4 so than means the author
> > probably wrote it in November and no sunspots had
> > been observed from July to November. So the article
> > appears to be correct in making the claim
> > "Months have passed with no visible spots"
> >
> >> Whitehouse is obviously spreading false information
> >
> > What specific information is false? It appears to me Whitehouse's
> > claim of "months of no visible sunspots" was accurate up to the
> > end of November (just before the article was published).
> >
> > Back in 2004 Whitehouse published an article about sunspot
> > activity being at a long-time HIGH:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3869753.stm
> >
> > "Sunspots reaching 1,000-year high Sunspots are plentiful
> > nowadays A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active
> > now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years."
> >
> > The bottom line for me is scientists are UNCERTAIN why the
> > earth got warmer in the decades prior to about 1940,
> > then cooled between 1940-1975 then got warmer
> > 1975 to ~2000 and temps have been rather steady
> > 2000 -2007. So what the next 20 years may bring is
> > anybody's guess. True, the concentration of CO2 in the
> > atmosphere will increase slightly, but it also increased
> > slightly from 1940 -1975 and yet the earth cooled.
> >
> > Paul Cherubini
> > El Dorado, Calif.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
> >
> > http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
> http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
|
