On 29/11/2011 12:07, dennis@home wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 29/11/2011 11:00, dennis@home wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

You can't attach too much importance to a single years weather.
Averaged over 11 years to largely eliminate any solar sunspot cycle
influence you get to see the long term underlying trends more clearly.

What about the longer bigger solar cycles that we have only just
discovered?

Which ones would those be?

We now know that the peaks (and troughs) of the 11 year sunspot cycle
have been getting higher for the last 50 years.

Absolute utter rubbish. The sunspot cycle peaked in intensity about
1958 (cycle 19) and has been gradually declining ever since. It all
but stalled from 2006-2010 with hardly any sunspots visible for months.

You obviously don't understand them.
Hint, the lower the number of sunspots the higher the solar flux.

You are clueless beyond words. The active sun is on average brighter.
This is well known and easily demonstrated by the satellite flux
monitoring data.

http://astro.ic.ac.uk/research/solar...ance-variation

A huge sunspot group can briefly decrease the solar flux for a few days
but the active sun with many sunspots is on average *BRIGHTER* because
the associated bright faculae are more important to average TSI.

This is a well known astronomical result that goes back to Herschel who
noticed the relationship of grain prices to sunspot number in 1801.

http://www.hao.ucar.edu/education/bios/herschel.html

You have demonstrated that you are a clueless anti-science dittohead.

Regards,
Martin Brown