Sunspotgate

[Climate Realist]

May I be the first to christen the Nasa "hide the decline" scandal "Sunspotgate"!

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=...t_comments

Whistleblower Outs NASA for Hiding Data of Global Cooling by John O'Sllivan, guest post ClimateRealists.com
Monday, June 20th 2011, 9:54 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Dear All

Here is a new article based on revelations given to me this morning by an anonymous whistleblower showing NASA is rigging the data in sunspots.

Thanks,

John O'Sullivan

As Earth enters deepest solar minimum in centuries NASA caught hiding sunspot data to prop up dying global warming cult. Inconvenient new ice age imminent.

A solar scientist insider who wishes to remain anonymous gives us the scoop that government officials are falsifying solar data to suit a political agenda. Below is his damning indictment of how deeply entrenched and desperate is the climate fraud. We see how observational data is being deliberately faked to hide the decline in sunspot activity; an event which independent scientists say could trigger a new ice age if it is prolonged.




The source, who fears losing his position if identified reveals, “The fact is for years we have been watching the magnetic fields wane both here on Earth and on the Sun.”

But NASA has conspired with advocates of the man-made global warming cult to 'hide the decline' which would make a mockery of their trumped claims mankind has created a new and warmer Anthropocene Climatic period.

Continued Rate of Cooling to Cause New Ice Age

Our nameless expert explains that since the 1990's and into the 21st century magnetic fields have dropped by about 50 gauss per year. No one denies that in itself, this is not a remarkable drop if it were to be soon reversed. However, if such a trend continues for a decade or more then the fears of solar scientists that we are entering a new Ice Age will be realized with potentially devastating consequences for life of Earth.

The unidentified insider explains that one of the doomsayers guilty of propping up the false global warming story and who has now been forced into an embarrassing recant is NASA's solar physicist, David Hathaway. Hathaway had claimed that Solar Cycle 24 would be strong but it wasn't. But like many scientists wedded to the doomsaying cult it was not until recently that Hathaway felt forced to drop the bar and suggest that Solar Cycle 24 may be weak and not the 50 percent stronger he had suggested in 2006.

Now Hathaway drops the bar further admitting that Solar Cycle 25 will be even weaker. So what does prolonged weak sunspot activity mean? Well, look no further than the last long period of low sunspot activity when the Earth suffered the misery of the Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age and devastating episodes of famine and bad harvests swept Europe. The climate became so cold that winter Frost Fairs were held on the thick ice that formed over the River Thames in London, England.

With no rises in global temperatures since 1998 and global cooling this century, the wider scientific community is discovering that a clique of self-serving climatologists have deliberately misinterpreted data from the Sun's Great Conveyor Belt.

Weakest Solar Cycle in Centuries

Government funded researchers were first caught out by the double peaked nature of Solar Cycle 23. They did not consider the double minimum we are currently in that will take us into the weakest Solar Cycle in centuries putting us into potentially ice age territory.

The unnamed whistleblower says, “Within a few years time the magnetic field will be too weak to support any sunspots on the face of the Sun.”

Sunspots form only when the magnetic field is stronger than 1500 gauss.

Gravy train government researchers persisting in ignoring the facts are fast losing their credibility. These 'scientists' have turned a blind eye to important historical works on the Sun such as that by Pieter Zeeman who, back in the 19th century gave us "Zeeman splitting.”

Our whistleblower warns, “this brings us to how sunspots have been counted over the last few years and the counting of areas that would not have been seen much less counted in the past. It is entirely possible that these short lived micro sunspots have shown up at every Solar Minimum and they were not seen so they were not counted. But that does not mean they were not there during periods such as the Maunder Minimum.”

Sadly, revisionists within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have succeeded for two decades in re-writing the Earth's temperature records. They have also succeeded in obscuring the proven key role the Sun plays, as witnessed by Judithgate whereby the 2007 IPCC Report relies on the work of ONE biased solar scientist, Judith Lean who positively 'reviewed' her own work.

Inconvenient Sunspots Shame NASA

The IPCC's fraud with Judithgate is now matched by what is currently taking place behind closed doors. Our anonymous friend gives us the scoop on some of NASA's latest shenanigans:
“The first example is the current fourth place record for total blank days in the period from July to September 2008, in which for 52 days just one micro sunspot appeared. Many in the science community were not at all to happy this was recorded as such because the area did not last 24 hours [a minimum requirement] and looked to many solar experts as nothing more than an aggravated pore.”

But still the doomsayer fraternity counted it.

“A second example is the current fifth place record for total blank days which is the 51-day day period from July to August 2009.”

Both of these blank periods have occurred in the current solar cycle and both were only days away from taking third place in all time spotless sun days since modern records began back in1850. They were conveniently 'stopped' by counting areas that prior to the 21st century would have not been counted as true sunspots – a clear case of cherry-picking.

Now here is the kicker some of you amateur solar watchers may or may not know about. “In early July 2009 we had the best defined sunspot of this cycle to date (# 1024). But you probably won't realize there was a second area that formed that month lasting less than one day and that was catalogued as # 15 on July 23rd 2009.”

My anonymous source tells me the reason it was not counted was because solar experts were expecting more sunspot activity and because the fact this area belonged to Solar Cycle 23.

“Now fast forward to August 31st 2009 and facing the fact that we were now only days from taking out the third place in all time blank periods. A micro sunspot appears and also lasts less than 24 hours. It got numbered right away but before September 1st was finished the spot was gone lasting less than 24 hours.”

Thus deliberate false accounting distorted the record books. Our faceless insider friend laments, “In the future solar scientists will look back on this period just as we now look back at the Persecution of Galileo.”

With the IPCC and NASA now discredited, the records need to be made public with all those responsible for doctoring the data brought to account; while independent and principled researchers should he heard without fear of recrimination.

For anyone interested in actual Independent Solar Research rather than the discredited hype about man-made global warming more information may be found here. http://solarimg.org/

[Derek]

WOW, just WOW.
And, I do believe you are the first to christen it so.
It is a name that should stick.

AND, many , many thanks for posting this here Climate Realist,
my shifts meant I had missed this completely.

[Richard111]

I remember those short lived sunspots. Also recently there have been numbered sunspots that were almost invisible.

Wasn't it the Aztecs who conducted human sacrifices in their attempts to control the sun? Well the present data manipulation to distract attention from the failing AGW scam will lead to the deaths of millions of people who will be totally unprepared for the coming cold and short food growing periods plus the lack of affordable energy to counter those problems.

I think it is deliberate. Mega sacrifice.

[Climate Realist]

Thanks for your kind comments Derek,

We Realists knew this information for some time. The Russians have been saying this for years that the sun will go quiet and with it a drop in global temperatures.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/0...climate-0/

Looks like Nasa have to eat humble pie and recognise that khabibullo abdusamatov was right where they were wrongly clinging to the AGW dogma.

"The scientist particularly said that a global reduction of temperatures would hit planet Earth in the middle of the 21st century because of receding solar radiation. Mr. Abdusamatov told Pravda.Ru that the new Ice Age will start very slowly. According to the scientist, the process will gather pace in 2050-55.

Abdusamatov compares the imminent reduction of temperatures with Maunder's minimum of solar activity registered in 1645-1715 (named so in honour of the English astronomer of the 19th century, Walter Maunder), when all canals froze in Holland and severe cold forced many people to leave their settlements. “The coldest years of the middle of the 21st century will be warmer than at the end of the 17th century,” the scientist clarified. "

"The specialist also said that he delivered his first report about the solar cycles provoking global climate changes in June of 2004, at the 233rd symposium of the International Astronomical Union. The report did not contain any specifications of the dates and periods for the weather changes. The scientist revealed approximate dates in September and October of 2005. “No one has expressed serious objections,” Mr. Abdusamatov said"

I agree, Richard, people could very well die in future cold winters when we have becalm induces rolling brownouts and un affordable "green" energy.

BTW, I have a plan to at least keep warm if the lights go out in the cold winters to come when the wind stops blowing (and turbines stop spinning). I suggest you all do the same and open/sweep up any chimneys you have in your dewlling and accumulate a stock of waste wood/ coal for heating fuel.

---

BTW, this article has gone ballistic in terms of views- on the CR blog- up to over 1,500 views!

[Scpg02.]

(06-20-2011 12:00 PM)Climate Realist Wrote:  BTW, I have a plan to at least keep warm if the lights go out in the cold winters to come when the wind stops blowing (and turbines stop spinning). I suggest you all do the same and open/sweep up any chimneys you have in your dewlling and accumulate a stock of waste wood/ coal for heating fuel.

---

BTW, this article has gone ballistic in terms of views- on the CR blog- up to over 1,500 views!

I'm just going to move in with you.

[Climate Realist]

(06-20-2011 04:35 PM)Scpg02. Wrote:  -snip-
I'm just going to move in with you.

Is that for my intellect and views on climate change or just to keep warm?

[Scpg02.]

(06-21-2011 02:04 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 04:35 PM)Scpg02. Wrote:  -snip-
I'm just going to move in with you.

Is that for my intellect and views on climate change or just to keep warm?

LOL does it matter?

[Climate Realist]

Well if I'm going to have a house guest, I'd like to know ;-)

[Richard111]

I hate to interrupt a developing courting ritual, but a change of subject is needed.

Climate Realist mentioned stocking up on wood. Not far from me is a factory that produces timber trusses for roofs and such so have lots of off cuts. You can collect a skip full for a fiver. Burns very nicely in my multifuel stove I installed in the lounge a couple of years ago. Have underfloor heating, no fireplaces, and that is now an expensive system so is used very sparingly. Nice to sit next to the stove and wife usually has a stew or something cooking on top so we get double benefit.

[Scpg02.]

heating with wood is illegal in many places here in California.

[Climate Realist]

(06-22-2011 08:14 AM)Scpg02. Wrote:  heating with wood is illegal in many places here in California.

Do you need to heat your house in California? I thought the climate was warm there except on high ground. (Sierra Nevada etc).

I don't see why burning wood should be illegal, even for alleged green reasons, as wood IS a renewable resource and is effectively carbon neutral if you plant trees to replace the ones chopped down for fire wood.

[Scpg02.]

(06-22-2011 08:22 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  

(06-22-2011 08:14 AM)Scpg02. Wrote:  heating with wood is illegal in many places here in California.

Do you need to heat your house in California? I thought the climate was warm there except on high ground. (Sierra Nevada etc).

I don't see why burning wood should be illegal, even for alleged green reasons, as wood IS a renewable resource and is effectively carbon neutral if you plant trees to replace the ones chopped down for fire wood.

Northern CA gets very cold. first you are not allowed to cut trees in California. The greenies believe we are running out and want to save the spotted owl. (don't get me started on this). As for the wood burning this is not allowed for air quality reasons.

[Sunsettommy]

(06-20-2011 11:35 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  I remember those short lived sunspots. Also recently there have been numbered sunspots that were almost invisible.

Wasn't it the Aztecs who conducted human sacrifices in their attempts to control the sun? Well the present data manipulation to distract attention from the failing AGW scam will lead to the deaths of millions of people who will be totally unprepared for the coming cold and short food growing periods plus the lack of affordable energy to counter those problems.

I think it is deliberate. Mega sacrifice.

Layman's Sunspot Count.

[Derek]

"We" should also be planning for warmer or cooler, and maybe also considerably cooler.
("We" already seem to have planning for considerably warmer "covered")

Because at present, no one knows.
The real situation appears to be that, despite warming fears, it appears to be getting cooler.

Maybe it will get much cooler, maybe not.
I would not want to be seen to be stating "severe cooling alarmism",
although it is a possibility that has to be considered, and taken into account in planning.

The science is not in yet.
Most of the "we" are still apparently "radiation obsessed" and
consequently looking and planning completely the wrong way.