Why have climate fictionists gone so quite on the Solar Minimum?

Peter seems to be trying to suggest that we 'alarmists' have some sort of theory concerning increased solar activity (it's a new one on me) low or high the change in TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) is tiny it is measured in watts per square meter (W/m2) as your graph shows the average variation is 1365.5 to 1366.5 a difference of less than 0.1%. Over the greenhouse effect and local phenomenon like El Nino and the PDO normal (or near normal) solar cycles would have only a very small effect but a small effect that normally swings one way and then the other, where the small effect we are having is a slow and continuous addition of CO2 which over a century has warmed the planet. Now if you look at denier claims you begin to see just how silly they are, they are claiming that the LIA caused a cooling over a similar period (and I actually agree with them on that) But they totally miss the point of the effect, this very small change in solar output had, when they try to suggest the very small change we have caused by adding Co2 has had no effect, in spite of the temperature record, the sea level record, the CO2 monitoring record and global retreating glaciers.

As well as myself, I've seen Trevor, Dana and a number of others try to explain this to deniers many times, but it's a bit like banging your head against a brick wall. They usually try to drag in the LIA while simultaneously ignoring the fact that was a minimum that lasted 50 years not a couple of years.

As for why they have gone quite, it's pretty simply reality is ignoring their silly theories and activity has been slowly climbing just as scientists estimated it would, while there was a very slow start to the cycle the zero activity seems to gone.

According to the NGCD Jun had a month average number of 13.5 and Jul was 16.1 neither month had a zero day, and deniers were usually only posting their questions on zero days.

This is an ftp link to the international averaged monthly totals

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/INTERNATIONAL/2010/2010

To date Augusts numbers are even higher.

Not even going to bother with bravojim's (watts) nonsense.

VMM: I guess they will ignore the fact it warmed through 2009 before the minimum ended, but then they don't let facts get in the way of any of their many other theories.

At this moment in time, with heatwaves and record breaking temperatures, it’s not a convenient argument for them to use. But don’t worry, the first sign of a drop in temperatures and they’ll be back predicting imminent ice ages.

As the skeptics and deniers have amply demonstrated on countless occasions, their arguments consistently change to fit whatever is happening in the world. Hence they’re now telling us that the record temperatures are because the data have been manipulated, because satellites are faulty, because surface stations are incorrectly sited, because the Sun is getting hotter. In fact, it seems that anything that comes to mind will suffice, we’ve even been told that thermometers aren’t accurate enough to determine what the temperature is.

It always amazes me that some people rely so heavily on the Sunspot cycles as an explanation for the recent warming. There might be some credibility if temperatures tracked sunspot numbers, but they doesn’t, not remotely.

I have to laugh out loud in agreement with vampire man. I think we can all just predict it right now, put it in a time capsule and seal it for a future joke, that the obvious next step for the noise machine of denialism will be to blame the increased temperatures on solar activity-- as it wakes up from the lowest levels of the cycle.

If this sounds too stupid to be possible, think again. It isn't any more stupid than the other things issuing out of the pie holes of Rush, Glenn and Sean (the three douches). I can see Glenn Beck now in my minds eye gesticulating wildly with spittle whipping out of his mouth, "folks, this is ridiculous!!! Of course it's getting warming! The solar activity is increasing!! We haven't seen sun activity like this in years!! Wake up! Of course it's getting warming (insert tears here) . Are these people nuts!!??"

I called it right here. I almost guarantee this unbelievably stupid line will be used in the future. Remember, if it sounds stupid, stop. That means it isn't stupid enough. To be believable it has to be so goddamn dumb it ties up the press for three weeks. The dumber it is, the more people will believe it, and all the more fervently.

Because we're in the midst of record hot global temperatures and the longest solar cycle minimum in a century.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010july/figure2...

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/earth_obs_fig27.pdf

Since this obvious divergence destroys the "it's the Sun" theory, deniers are very quiet about it, hoping nobody will notice until the next solar cycle ramps up, at which point they can blame global warming on the fraction of a fraction of a percent increase in incoming solar radiation.

Peter J is hilarious calling this question a straw man. For years in every single one of his answers he said "no sunspots, forecast cold". We've made fun of him for it a few times, because it basically became his catchphrase.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak8hi...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmxbO...

I also love bravozulu's answer. "There is a possible explanation. It isn't simpleminded so it won't likely appeal to alarmists. In fact I haven't figured out what he talking about exactly."

A perfect example of denialism. 'Somebody put something on a blog that says the Sun is to blame. I don't understand it, but I'm sure it's right!'

The theory he references is painfully stupid. It blames global temperature changes on solar cycle length (that's right, not incoming solar radiation, but rather the amount of time that a solar cycle lasts). And the way it does that is to look at temperature data from Hanover, New Hampshire. No joke, see my answer here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Akawx...

If you want a textbook example of using ridiculous cherrypicking to support the absurd conclusion that you want to be true, Watts, bravozulu, and David Archibald have got you covered.

Honestly, it's because the main person was James E, who is no longer active in this group. He kept talking about how we were all going to freeze, but ancestors had prepared him for it, or something like that.

I hope everything is ok with him, because I found him to be one of the more amusing crackpots in here.

Simple. During the Solar Minimum, the temp kept rising... And now that it's more or less over, they're gearing up to blame warming on the increase in solar activity.

I find bz's answer just bleeping hilarious.

>>There is a possible explanation. It isn't simpleminded so it won't likely appeal to alarmists. In fact I haven't figured out what he talking about exactly.<<

Why, exactly, would you post 'evidence' that you don't understand, and therefor can't be sure is correct?

_

Nice straw man.

Actually, the sun has a few spots now. Might be time to warm up the alarmist propaganda machine again... except this a poor show and kind of late. We actually have a sunspot number of 50... which depending on how you look at it is either nothing to get excited about, or something to be really excited about. http://www.spaceweather.com/

As far as total number of sunspots during the time in the cycle... it's not many. But it's a lot more than the zero we had for an extended period of time recently. Warmer is good... a solar minimum would not be a joyful situation.

There is a possible explanation. It isn't simpleminded so it won't likely appeal to alarmists. In fact I haven't figured out what he talking about exactly. Flattening of the heliospheric current sheet changing the temperature three degrees in their models has me puzzled. I am sure they will have a better explantion for it in about 20 years when they get more data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/solar-tilt/