Why is so much being made of the current lack of sunspots?

There have been quite a few comments recently here and on sites like whatsupwiththat about the absence of sunspots, and while numbers have been low sunspots have been occurring

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6

About half way down are the actual observed sunspots averages from 1995 to 2008.

Will this , as some claim the start of cooling, hardly last solar minimum was 1997 it was followed by 98' (very warm) while spot number were still low. 1954 was even lower, was there a cooling, no 1954 onward was a warming period through to the early 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te...

Lack of sun spots indicate a change in solar activity and a possible "cooling" of the sun. Solar activity is a factor that affects climate on earth - all the energy receive on Earth to make food and warm the planet is dependent on solar output. There are solar cycles that have been pretty regular over the years. Sun spots have an 11 year cycle on average. The lack of sunspots corresponds to the little ice age in the 1600s, and to increase the cooling even more, there may have been more volcanic activity than usual. Volcanic activity primarily has a cooling effect on the global temperature because of the huge amount of dust and aerosols emitted into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). We have not seen changes in solar activity that have a large impact on incoming solar radiation, measure by orbiting satellites, since 1970.

Low sun spot activity may reduce the rate of global warming for a short time period, but we have seen a significant amount of warming since the mid 1800s in spite of any change inf sun spot activity. The projections of global warming consider the major natural phenomenon (orbital cycles, sun spot cycles, volcanic activity) that influence earth''s climates. The natural factors alone do not explain the warming we have seen over the past 150 years. Only when scientists consider the human contribution to greenhouse gases can they explain why the planet has warmed since the industrial revolution. The US National Academy of Sciences sums it up in an easy to read booklet:

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change...

Many people don't understand that the first thing scientists look at with global warming is the natural factors that affect warming. The reason scientists think there is a problem is because the natural factors do not explain a significant portion of the warming we have now seen (0.7 degrees on average - can be much more or much less depending on where you are). People don't understand the warming, climate, and weather connection; the impact the changes can have on Earth's ecosystems; and how ecosystems affect their life. These are very complicated connections that directly affect the welfare of everybody on the planet. Many YA opinions politically motivated or made without adequate educational backgrounds in many different subjects areas (climatology, meteorology, oceanography, biology, environmental sciences, ecology, economics, public health, sociology). They will not affect the scientific efforts in the end. To get the answers policy makers need to make rational decisions, the focused attention of many subject area experts who can simulate what is happening using physics, talk it over, argue about the usefulness of the results, and ultimately figure out what they think is a reasonable explanation for what is happening is needed. This group is 90% confident that human activity is causing global warming (beyond what we would see if only natural factors were the only driving forces).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/a...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

It's not really, but the acknowledgment that spots have a larger influence/correlation then CO2. Seems to be what disturbs a lot of people. They escalate, reach the apex, then descended on 11yr cycles. Currently cycle 23 is transitioning into 24 which may take as long as 4-5yrs. So periods of inactivity as Dana put it are correlating to cooler temperatures. They do have warming and cooling predictions for named cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/scycle.html

There is a Discover article '' Politically incorrect - Sunspots causes global warming". I believe that's the title of the article. I think it's a 2006 or 2007 article. For more info on sunspots and global warming follow the link below.

The Little Ice Age, a period of time when it was extremely cold, is technically known as the Maunder Minimum. The "minimum" refers to minimum number of sunspots. Currently we live in the Modern Maximum. It is no coincidence that in the Modern Maximum, temperatures are relatively warm. Sunspots are related to solar output. Currently we have a low number of spots as expected in the 11 year cycle. The lack of spots is mildly disconcerting, but I wouldn't worry about it since the real trends will reveal themselves after several decades.

Astronomical sites aren't in the business of reporting the consequences of a lack of sunspots, they're just reporting the lack and apparently saying "hmmm.... the upswing in sunspots is a couple of years over due, and we have had our first month of zero sunspots for about a hundred years."

The interesting thing is that during very cold periods sunspots are minimal or nonexistent. ( the last cold period we have actual records of sunspot numbers or lack thereof, and actual temperature records however crude. )

When there are a lot of sunspots, we can predict accurately how the atmosphere will reflect energy back to the earth. (predicted well enough that radio wave propagation programs can help you pick an ideal radio frequency for use over a particular distance over the earth. It does this by calculating the reflective power of the atmosphere. The information installed is the sunspot number.

http://www.blackcatsystems.com/propagation/solar_f...

This correlation is a better one than the correlation between CO2 and temperature because it is a highly reliable predictor.

The correlation between sunspots and temperature -- less reliable, but the BIG trends are not disputable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum

The sunspot cycle number 24 is being delayed.. It could begin at any time, but for right now it's late.

http://www.smeter.net/propagation/sunspots/sunspot...

Please note that the sunspot cycle reference here is from an Amateur radio site, not someone who even cares about global climate.

And please note that I'm not "freaking out" but reporting. We skeptics save the freaking out for the AGW greenshirts.

at first, the concept of man made international warming is a concept, and not the rest. the laptop fashions that are used to coach destiny international warming through carbon dioxide are unsuitable. The "green abode gasoline" this is maximum prevalant interior the ambience is water vapor. not one of the fashions that teach international warming element in water vapor. it is significant to understand, because of the fact water vapor condenses, turns to rain, and cools the ambience. Why do those fashions not use water vapor? because of the fact the water vapor concentrations are to dynamic to sort. till very those days(previous couple of months) the guy-made warming proponents trusted NASA's archives that confirmed 1998 because of the fact the warmest twelve months on checklist. NASA grew to become into compelled to revise those archives because of the fact the tactic used to collect them grew to become into unsuitable. those archives now state that 1934 grew to become into the warmest twelve months on checklist. there have been extra suitable than 550 papers revealed by skill of scientists in all significant scientific guides that disagree with the concept that guy, or carbon dioxide has something to do with international warming. yet those comments at the instant are not noted by skill of the media because of the fact they don't extra healthful the template of green abode gasoline being the reason of world warming. Now to respond to your question, there is not something that guy can do to the two enhance the international temperature, or decrease it. international warming is principally brought about by skill of the sunlight.....extra scientist accept as true with that, than green abode gasses being the reason. From the mid-1400's contained in direction of the mid-1800's the Earth grew to become into in what ALL scientists agree grew to become into the little ice age, and it takes almost 2 hundred years for the earth's temperature to equalize. international warming may well be happening, yet there continues to be some agument on that. guy-made international warming is extra faith than technology. while Greenland grew to become into named, it grew to become into named Greenland for a reason......it grew to become into frequently green. in fact, Greenland grew to become into used because of the fact the Nordic peoples farm land till the mid1400's while the Earth entered the little ice age. Edit Thomas, the source for the profesors concept that Mars grew to become into warming on the comparable cost is NASA. And he's perfect.

Well sunspot activity is one of the best documented climate altering events over the last 6,000 years and the records of local climate along with them. These records go back to ancient china, Egypt and the Fertile Crescent cultures and they judged they’re setting aside of crops for famines based on them. During the Middle Ages cooling prior to the MWP the sun had been virtually spot free for several hundred years and around the year 800 it has been recorded that a sudden return of solar activity so panicked people that they blamed it for the death of the king. This sudden return of solar activity signaled the beginning of the MWP and a return to a warming productive planet from the famine of the dark ages!

It's true we're in the middle of an abnormally long period without sunspot activity. Some people freak out because there's some evidence that past periods of low solar activity resulted in cold periods on Earth.

However, there has been virtually no change in solar activity over the past 70 years, and yet the planet has been warming rapidly (due to human CO2 emissions). There is no reason to believe that a period of low solar activity will suddenly overwhelm the increased greenhouse effect and cause the planet to cool. If anything, a low solar activity period will give us a short-term pause in global warming, and an opportunity to address the problem before it's too late.

The last time that there were no sun spots we were in a climate event known as the Little Ice Age. Do you think that is coincidence?