Comments:Hurricanes may be associated with sunspots

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

This post alarms me - global warming due to man made emissions also obviously has an effect on hurricane intensity, yet this article does not acknowledge this at all. There are a lot of interconnected factors at play on earth, and sun spots may be one, but the tone of this article makes it sound like they've found the ultimate source for hurricanes. Please add in a little more open mindedness! :)

hurricanes may be associated with lunatics operating submarines heating the ocean in a specific spot, then letting the weather machine do it's work. so what? sunspots have electromagnetic radiation which affects ionospheric comminications, but induced brownian motion is more targetable, and is more interesting than inducing sunspots. Yosef.garibaldi (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Bogus

There may be an association, even a correlation, but without even a theoretical mechanism there is no way to say they're causally related. Junk science. - Amgine | ^t 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I guess we will just have to wait 100 more years to find better evidence. I'll be waiting.--Nukedoom (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you need?

Dear Wikinews,

I apologize of any grammar or spelling mistakes.

My work is based on last Ice Age studies. I began looking at sunspots as the possible start of Named Storms after 1750 with the restart of sunspot cycles with some substance. I found that Glacier Bay glaciers began to recede with the restart of sunspot cycles around 1750. My readings of Ohio State University work showed that a constant of about 22 degrees is required to maintain a glacier along with precipitation, area to grow and a place to flow.

So, when did the named storms begin? They need 82 degrees ocean waters with a depth of 100 feet of 82 degrees. When were the oceans warm enough to support a named storm? We know that they have been tracked through the 1800s, but were they here any earlier than that?

My detailed work into this question began in April 2007 and is based on Sir Richard Gregory's work found in Sir James Jeans' book, Through Space and Time, which I purchased the year before. He matched Lake Victoria's lake levels to Sunspot activity and found that they matched. I simply took that a step or two furthered and assumed there were feeder storms to the lake. Named storms really didn't give it a correlation, but Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) came out beautifully.

I have quit a few charts based on sunspot activity compared to ACE.

One summary piece was published in the Lakeland Ledger: http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080402/NEWS/804020527/1037/EDIT

The important part of this piece is that it approaches the two questions of stated above. What does it take to move the glacier production forward and back and hurricane production forward and back. In detail, in 2002, the saddle in the last cycle, gave way to recorded growth in one Glacier Bay glacier. In that saddle, the two peaks of ACE formed the saddle along with the sunspot activity. That 60 degrees difference between glacier production and hurricane production doesn't take much to move it around.

The other question brought up is CO2. I approached it on the basis that CO2 not only maintains a warm earth, but it has to give over to cold like any compound. Thus, can the earth produce its own dry snow, liquid CO2 or dry ice. I think it can and I think the Polar Region ice is maintained in this way. CO2 appears to create 14-year delayed Mother Nature climate-change cycle. In other words, what begins to take place in the cycle sees its fruit around the 14th year. Without the CO2 balance, our climate would change nearly every year.

Since 1934, the sunspot cycles have shown significant strength except for 1964 to 1976 cycle. In that cycle, Polar Region ice grew and reached its max in 1979. As we have seen in the last 3 cycles, the hurricanes have picked up strength and Polar Region ice finally collapsed. At the end of the 1970s, La Niñas were nearly back to back. We only have data on La Niñas and El Niños dating back to 1923, I believe, which inhibits some comparisons.

Characteristics and tendencies of ACE in sunspot cycles:

The results shows that the first year of a sunspot cycle tends to determine the ACE for the coming cycle. As in 1913, it dropped off considerably due to a lack of sunspot activity. Now, we just finished another three hot cycles.

ACE tends to drop in the last and first year of a sunspot cycle. The last year dropped to 70 and historically it should have been a 40 ACE for the first year this cycle. However, the last two cycles showed little down-time in terms of ACE. They might drop to around 70 in the last year, but the first year has been a rocket in ACE. One reason not to be a forecaster. I missed that one. The three hot cycles are hotter than I thought. I did guess 8 to 12 and I think it will finish with 15 or 16 named storms this year. Named storms can happen in December. To my advantage or disadvantage as a forecaster is much of my data lacks the technology of today. I think we can count better, now, which adds ACE to the annual totals. It has to be higher now than what we had 50 years ago.

At trend I did notice in the first year of sunspot cycles is the named storms are more evenly distributed from spring to fall in the last few cycles. They tend to be bunched up around August to October when the cycles are cooler than its brothers and sisters.

Strong sunspot cycles produce two peak ACE periods, first begins around the 2d year of a cycle and is duplicated towards the end of the cycle. There is a valley in the middle of the cycle.

In summary, my data begins with 1889 and I'm awaiting 2008 data on sunspot activity and Hurricane Tracking Center's final word before a finish my first annual report. I'd like to protect my contribution to this web page. I did file it with Library of Congress. Recommendations? I know it needs to be validated?

My efforts to predict have mostly failed. The two things that stayed true in the characteristics for this year of a cycle were the equal mix of tropical storms and hurricanes and a realitive calm season for Florida. I try to remain historic, but this present cycle appears so far to match the 1997 to 2007 start up.

In the next few weeks I will pull my data together and try to determine which template to use in my report, the 1964 to 1976 cycle or the 1997 to 2007 cycle. It's favoring the latter at first glance.

Sincerely,

Paul Pierett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Pierett (talk • contribs) 05:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)