• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Steve Zorichak
My interest in solar activity began in 1952, when I began skiing (side-stepping up and sliding down the gentle slopes of Willis Case Golf Course, which borders the north side of Interstate 70 at Sheridan). I lived at 44th and Otis and could easily walk there, about 1½ miles when I was 16 years old.

I had read in the Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy that the ancients saw sunspots and made the correlation of the effect on the warming of the Earth two to three days later. The book also showed that vintage grape crops occurred during the 11-year periodic cycle shown for the last 200 years.

The Federal Register in 1975 reported that a group of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA’s Boulder, Colorado-based environmental research laboratory) and the Space Environments’ Service Center had been observing and forecasting the effects of solar activity.

The year 1971, the scientists note, was part of what is normally a quiet period late in the current 11-year cycle of solar activity. NOAA indicates that the impact on Earth was extensive: Peak X-ray emissions of the August flares were in the extremely high “X-5” range or higher, an unprecedented level in the history of solar observations. “Hard” X-rays — highly energetic ones with very short wavelengths — cause enhanced electrical conductivity in the upper atmosphere and related changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Reports received at NOAA’s Boulder laboratories indicated that, at certain times during the storms, large percentages of homing pigeons failed to return home; those that did make it back were often frightened and disoriented.

The science section of the August 1972 Time magazine reported: “With no forewarning, the sun underwent a series of violent eruptions that caused some of the worst magnetic storms on Earth in recent years. It’s like getting a snowstorm in Atlanta in July.”

On July 3, 1989, the Time cover story headline read: “Great Ball of Fire, an angry sun stages a spectacular show.” The June 6, 2006, U.S. News & World Report cover story was “Global Warming: Can We Live with It?”

In spite of 50 years’ reporting, sunspot activity is regarded as abnormally high. One reference mentioned a normal year has 14 eruptions. By 2004, the eruptions had increased to more than 1,000.

Unless one has a fascination with solar storms and their effect on ski conditions, these escalating events attract very little attention. The years 1972-1975, 1983-1987, 1998-2000 and 2005-2007 may be recalled as heavy snow years.

Last week, National Public Radio interviewed one scientist who said the cycle is diminishing rapidly and in half a dozen years, the cycle should return to a normal 11 years. Why, then, are some politicians and environmentalists so worried about global warming? They needn’t be. In just a few years, everything will be back to normal.

Steve Zorichak is a resident of Vail.

READER COMMENTS

Right KW. More likely you just can't deal with the subject at hand.

http://tinyurl.com/yr2smu

Sorry CL, but with a lame subject like global warming, theres just way too many easy puchlines.

Try getting a sense of humor before your face falls off.

It didn't "escape" me KW. I think it says a lot about you that in a discussion about sunspots (see the title of the letter) your contribution is moose farts.

I can understand how it escapes you CL. Try rereading the links and you'll see they both deal with the effects of global warming.

The humor in the post (escaped you again?) was while the articles both reference the moose, one says the moose will suffer while the other claims the moose is at fault.

Anything else you need splained to you Lucy?

Wow, that's quite the substantial contributution there KW.

Care to tell us the relevance of moose and sunspots - you know, the subject of this thread?

Make that moose killing himself

Sorry for the technical difficulties.

Oh come on now.

Is it man killing the moose or is the moose killing himself with global warming?

Can't these GW scientists get it straight for a change?

And when was the hottest year of record again?

Mr. Zorichak doesn't cite quantified temperature variations, but an obscure reference to "ancients" seeing sunspots (which, BTW, historically, Galileo was the first recorded to have seen sunspots by projecting the suns image with a telescope. It's doubtful the "ancients" ever saw sunspots).

His other references were to solar activity and "heavy" snowfall (which is the rate of precipitation and not necessarily related to temperature and are regional at best, not global). Also, he says 1998-2000 were heavy snow years, but the years 1999 and 2000 actually had high numbers of sunspots, which contradicts his claimed connection. See:
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/YEARLY.PLT
for a list of sunspot counts by year.

The references I cited used quantified temperature changes resulting from solar activity - something we know pretty accurately now and the studies indicate that these variations are not significant compared to the temperature variations currently being observed.

Hmmmmm

Please explain. Mr. Zorichak
speaks in terms of sunspots on temperature and cites temperature variations that correspond with such variations. Others there cite brightness variations and discount those observations and correlations. Again...Please explain why there is relevance here.

Mr Zorichak has an interesting hypothesis, albeit not original. Part of the scientific method is to form a hypothesis and then test it. This hypothesis has been proposed in the science community, has been tested and the results are publicly available - but Mr Zorichak doesn't mention this research - why? See below and a couple reasons for Mr Zorichak's omission will be rather clear.

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

And another:

Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html

The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.

Some folks need to do a bit more research.

The solar sunspot cycles have been known for a very long time, but what impact do they have on global temperature changes on earth? Research HAS been done on this specific question, but Mr. Zorichak fails to mention this research. Why doesn't he mention this research? Could it be because the findings don't support his claims???

Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html

The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.

And another...

Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml

The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

After the ridiculous hoax of Christianity and all its accompanying nonsense, global warming almost seems like something believable.

Almost.

This is the condition of the brainpower behind the global warming hoax:

"Nearly 600 volunteers stripped naked before the camera on a melting Swiss glacier high in the Alps on Saturday as part of a publicity campaign to expose the impact of climate change.

Environmental group Greenpeace commissioned the photo shoot ."
----
This is the same crowd who drive a Prius, buy carbon credits, don't B-B-Q or eat meat, eat beansprouts and granola bars, wear Birkenstocks, have spikey green hair and sport nose rings, eat nothing but organic and all natural food, think that Al Gore invented the internet, believe that John Kerry did not shoot himself in the butt, think 9-11 and Kennedy's assassination were inside jobs, believe that space aliens routinely visit the earth, think Sasquatch is a friendly DNC leader, love Fidel Castro, worship George Soros, pay $2 more per pound for their range fed chickens and believe that the war on terrorism is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan.

That's them, all 600 lieing naked on a block of ice--the global warming crowd.

I think it keeps messing up my cable too.

Holy carbon credits...I still haven't fully recovered from "The Coming Ice Age" predicted by the same old and all too familiar members of our scientific community some 30 years ago!

Global warming, like Sasquatch, is a hoax.

exactly! sunspot activity is also responsible for the quagmire in iraq, the mortgage market mess, the popularity of reality tv and gay marriage initiatives. Just keep doing everything the same. the sun will take care of it all for us.

POST A COMMENT

• Profit motive is killing health care
• Schools must become ever more adaptive
• Future of Divide Trail up to public
• Denver’s mighty tug/More help for its most vulnerable would only add to the Mile-High City’s allure
• Coloradans' rights lost to safety clause
• Parents, socio-political groups and leaders have failed our children
• Building up public health should be basis for health-care reform
• Nothing ‘sexual’ about priest’s nude jogging