For reasons including "pure politically correct", NASA has fought a losing battle - against reality - on the subject of Global Warming, which it feels obliged to believe in as a "scientifically correct" theory. Linked to this, quite directly, NASA has also battled against reality on the subject of sunspot frequency, size, location on the Sun's surface and other variables linked to sunspot cycles in this present Cycle 24 of approximately 11-year-long cycles. These have been accurately recorded since Cycle 1 set by convention between astronomers as starting in Feb 1755.
NASA wanted to believe Cycle 24 would be about the same, perhaps bigger in sunspot numbers and intensity, than Cycle 23. This has not happened. Cycle 24 started weak and got much weaker: February 1906 and Fenruary 2013 had one thing in common, they both had extreme low numbers of observable sunspots on "our" local Star. Year 1906 was the year the San Francisco earthquake hit. Other notable events for 1906 included Finland allowing women to vote - the first European country to do it!
An interesting comparison, 1906 with 2013.
I can find the Jan 2013 assesment: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ ... nuary.html
February 2013: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ ... 3/february
March: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013 ... on-record/
Agricultural statistics 1906 .Pdf form : http://eppi.dippam.ac.uk/pdf1/14386.pdf
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bi ... --1----2--