Record-low number of sunspots continues. Meaning? "Uh, nothing at all, citizen."
And now for something lighter: What is the pic below?
Is it the latest piece of modern art that just sold for $30-million?
A prize-winning orange, perhaps?
Or is it the latest Democrat meme warning Americans that if any governor dares to lift the lockdown that's killed the economy we'll all die of the virus?
In our current age all of those are possible. But it's actually a pic of our sun, taken today.
Notice anything unusual? If you haven't seen many closeup pics of the sun you probably don't. There aren't any sunspots. But why should that matter to you, eh?
Because although for decades "experts" believed the sun's output was constant, we now know that the sun's output is highly correlated to the number of sunspots.
The number of sunspots follows a short 11-year cycle, but also what may be a longer cycle. For example, from 1610 to about 1700 almost no sunspots were seen. It was the first time humans had recorded almost a century of such low activity. "By coincidence," winters on Earth got so cold that the Thames river froze solid. But at the time, no one made the connection.
Now it looks as if the long-term period of low activity is back.
Now we've seen two consecutive years with a record low number of sunspots--spotless for 77% of days in 2019 and 76% of the days so far this year. By comparison, other troughs of the 11-year cycle have typically had less than 20% of spotless days.
What does this mean to you? Probably that the planet is gonna get cooler. How much cooler, and when, are anyone's guess--because we've only had one period of similar inactivity, 300-plus years ago, and the number of global measuring stations was quite low back then, so we just don't know.
But we do know a couple of things: First, if the planet does cool, Democrats, socialists and the Gretas of the world will proudly crow that the sun had nothing to do with it, but instead that it was due to their forcing western economies to shift away from fossil fuels (which produce the deadly carbon dioxide that the warmies claim is causing the planet to warm fatally).
Second, because they'll claim the cooling was due to their efforts, they'll redouble their demands for even more laws banning or raising taxes on fossil fuels.
Third, you won't see a single article in the Lying Mainstream Media on the role of the sun in the cooling, since that would contradict the Dems' claims.
You can already see this at work on the various NASA websites, where they invariably describe the current solar cycle as totally normal. Nothing unusual at ALL, citizen! And of course if everything is, like, totes normal, no one could reasonably claim that any global cooling was due to the low solar activity, eh? Cuz if cooling were due to low activity, that would blast a big hole in the warmies' theory--cuz it would cause people to ask,
Is it the latest piece of modern art that just sold for $30-million?
A prize-winning orange, perhaps?
Or is it the latest Democrat meme warning Americans that if any governor dares to lift the lockdown that's killed the economy we'll all die of the virus?
In our current age all of those are possible. But it's actually a pic of our sun, taken today.
Notice anything unusual? If you haven't seen many closeup pics of the sun you probably don't. There aren't any sunspots. But why should that matter to you, eh?
Because although for decades "experts" believed the sun's output was constant, we now know that the sun's output is highly correlated to the number of sunspots.
The number of sunspots follows a short 11-year cycle, but also what may be a longer cycle. For example, from 1610 to about 1700 almost no sunspots were seen. It was the first time humans had recorded almost a century of such low activity. "By coincidence," winters on Earth got so cold that the Thames river froze solid. But at the time, no one made the connection.
Now it looks as if the long-term period of low activity is back.
Now we've seen two consecutive years with a record low number of sunspots--spotless for 77% of days in 2019 and 76% of the days so far this year. By comparison, other troughs of the 11-year cycle have typically had less than 20% of spotless days.
What does this mean to you? Probably that the planet is gonna get cooler. How much cooler, and when, are anyone's guess--because we've only had one period of similar inactivity, 300-plus years ago, and the number of global measuring stations was quite low back then, so we just don't know.
But we do know a couple of things: First, if the planet does cool, Democrats, socialists and the Gretas of the world will proudly crow that the sun had nothing to do with it, but instead that it was due to their forcing western economies to shift away from fossil fuels (which produce the deadly carbon dioxide that the warmies claim is causing the planet to warm fatally).
Second, because they'll claim the cooling was due to their efforts, they'll redouble their demands for even more laws banning or raising taxes on fossil fuels.
Third, you won't see a single article in the Lying Mainstream Media on the role of the sun in the cooling, since that would contradict the Dems' claims.
You can already see this at work on the various NASA websites, where they invariably describe the current solar cycle as totally normal. Nothing unusual at ALL, citizen! And of course if everything is, like, totes normal, no one could reasonably claim that any global cooling was due to the low solar activity, eh? Cuz if cooling were due to low activity, that would blast a big hole in the warmies' theory--cuz it would cause people to ask,
"If the sun can cause global cooling, isn't it reasonable to guess that it could also cause...um...some other change in global temperature?"
posted by SF at
1:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home