As it happens, last week also saw astronomer and Sun expert Dr David Whitehouse further the case for Solar forcing's majority influence. Whitehouse reported that it's been months since any sunspots have been observed:
"After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet."
The significance of which might become quite evident quite quickly. You see, whenever presented with the obvious (and logical) correlations between solar activity and Terran climate in the past, Solar Deniers claimed that continued elevations in global temperatures after 1998 somehow disproved any direct connection. While insignificant in long-term analysis, Whitehouse nonetheless attributed this to the rapid increase between 1978 and 1998, after which average temps have held their high, but steady, level:
"Almost everyone agrees that throughout most of the last century the solar influence was significant. Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun's activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years."
He suggests we're actually in a period of solar activity low enough to not only counteract any GHG increases, but, as proposed by Russian Academy of Sciences members, actually cause temperatures to drop 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2020. Whitehouse dubs this new Solar season, which may even usher in another Little Ice Age, the Modern Solar Minimum. The good doctor also lists it with previously correlative periods the greenies completely ignore:
Modern Solar Minimum
(2000-?)
Modern Climate Optimum
(1890-2000) - the world is getting warmer. Concentrations of greenhouse gas increase. Solar activity increases.
Dalton Solar Minimum
(1790-1820) - global temperatures are lower than average.
Maunder Solar Minimum
(1645-1715) - coincident with the 'Little Ice Age'.
Spörer Solar Minimum
(1420-1530) - discovered by the analysis of radioactive carbon in tree rings that correlate with solar activity - colder weather. Greenland settlements abandoned.
Wolf Solar Minimum
(1280-1340) - climate deterioration begins. Life gets harder in Greenland.
Medieval Solar Maximum
(1075-1240) - coincides with Medieval Warm Period. Vikings from Norway and Iceland found settlements in Greenland and North America.
Oort Solar Minimum
(1010-1050) - temperature on Earth is colder than average.
If current trends continue, 2007 will be the coolest year this century, perhaps the coolest since 1995.
Of course, should temperatures continue to drop off precipitously while CO2 levels continue to rise, those intent on wielding both political and economic power through junk-science know they will have missed their opportunity to do so.
Global cooling, not global warming.
Yet again, the scientific community displays the incredible lack of consensus on the scope and impact of global warming.
Mike, Thanks for this. David Whitehouse is a BBC correspondent. It will be great if variations in solar forcing do manage to hold down the increases for a few years, to give us breathing space to tackle AGW. Unfortunately for our children, when the solar minimum ceases, it is liable to give global tempratures a most unpleasant upward bounce.
Richard.
Royal Society on this topic:
Change in solar activity is one of the many factors that influence the climate but cannot, on its own, account for all the changes in global average temperature we have seen in the 20th Century.
Changes in the Sun's activity influence the Earth's climate through small but significant variations in its intensity. When it is in a more active' phase as indicated by a greater number of sunspots on its surface it emits more light and heat. While there is evidence of a link between solar activity and some of the warming in the early 20th Century, measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures.
The magnitude and pattern of changes to temperatures can only be understood by taking all of the relevant factors both natural and human into account. For example, major volcanic eruptions produce a cooling effect because they blast ash and other particles into the atmosphere where they persist for a few years and reduce the amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Also, burning fossil fuels produces particles called sulphate aerosols which tend to cool the climate in the same way.
Over the first part of the 20th Century higher levels of solar activity combined with increases in human generated carbon dioxide to raise temperatures. Between 1940 and 1970 the carbon dioxide effect was probably offset by increasing amounts of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, and a slight downturn in solar activity, as well as enhanced volcanic activity.
During this period global temperatures dropped. However, in the latter part of the 20th Century temperatures rose well above the levels of the 1940s. Strong measures taken to reduce sulphate pollution in some regions of the world meant that industrial aerosols began to provide less compensation for an increasing warming caused by carbon dioxide. The rising temperature during this period has been partly abated by occasional volcanic eruptions.
http://www.royalsoc.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233Hey...there's an idea, since AGW is the biggest threat facing the planet, perhaps we should abate Global Warming with a little Nuclear Winter?
Mike do you understand this passage from the Royal Society? Does it influence your thinking?
"measurements from satellites show that there has been very little change in underlying solar activity in the last 30 years there is even evidence of a detectable decline and so this cannot account for the recent rises we have seen in global temperatures."
Richard
How can that influence my thinking when when NASA says the following.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.
I don't know how to get it through your head that when "experts" cannot agree, how do you expect the public to accept AGW and proposed "cures" that could well have no effect, but be devastating to the economy?
There are always disagreements among "experts". Nobody denies that solar output has an influence on climate, but it is a minor influence. Look above, (in the Barmaid Dialogue) and you will find a reference that quantifies that influence.
Re the "economic devastation"; the only people to be devastated are those parts of the oil industry who are too inflexible to realise that they are in the business of supplying energy, not just in the business of sucking (oil).
The economy is probably going to be devastated anyway, from the sub-prime unwise lending propensity of banks. Untreated climate change will also devastate the economy. Have you looked up the Pascal's Wager link?
http://tinyurl.com/2w3fc9
Mike, I am getting bored repeating myself. The key thing not scientific detail, but the fact that that you are convinced that global warming is a conspiracy whereby radical Greens and Reds have somehow convinced the scientific and political community of the world of a delusionary idea in order to subvert the free market economy.
I do not see that there is anything I can do to dissuade you of that view, nor do I feel indeed that it is my responsibility to try to do so.
Environmentalists constantly keep reminding us that there is a scientific 'consensus' amongst scientists and experts as to the reasons behind global warming and climate change.
But hold on a minute - it has not even occurred to most believers of AGW that if you have a consensus, that does not mean you have 'The Truth'. In fact, consensus is not science; its politics. Scientific understanding is not achieved by voting.
Like most environmentalist policymakers, including the IPCCs Third Assessment Report Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis ignores one very important variable in climate change science - the Sun. Scientists and ecologists must first stabilise the Sun before they start tinkering with the earths climate.
The IPCCs Summary analysis may sound authoritative, but in reality it is a worthless guide to making policy decisions. Policymakers, political leaders and ecologists have used the IPCCs analysis to offer us their bogus solution: decarbonisation of the globe, or face total annihilation of us and the planet.
Why do environmentalists have this obsession with the reduction of CO2 emissions? In any case, CO2 is not a pollutant, we need it. It's a natural part of the atmosphere; it's vital food for plant life. Indeed, commercial farmers and growers use CO2 to enrich their greenhouses so that their fruits and vegetable grow bigger and better.
Read on: The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun - Earth Connection. 2004 By Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics).
Why do environmentalists have this obsession with the reduction of CO2 emissions? In any case, CO2 is not a pollutant, we need it. It's a natural part of the atmosphere; it's vital food for plant life. Indeed, commercial farmers and growers use CO2 to enrich their greenhouses so that their fruits and vegetable grow bigger and better.
I just picked this up over here:http://tinyurl.com/332wcp
It is from the UNDP, about the impact of climate change on human development. Courtney is hot on non-intervention in other countries, but climate change is a huge intervention, imposed mainly by us in the West. Its a kind of imperialism by pollution.
They have evidence ot believe that some or all of these things could happen:
- The breakdown of agricultural systems as a result of increased exposure to drought, rising temperatures, and more erratic rainfall, leaving up to 600 million more people facing malnutrition. Semi-arid areas of sub-Saharan Africa with some of the highest concentrations of poverty in the world face the danger of potential productivity losses of 26% by 2060. - An additional 1.8 billion people facing water stress by 2080, with large areas of South Asia and northern China facing a grave ecological crisis as a result of glacial retreat and changed rainfall patterns. - Displacement through flooding and tropical storm activity of up to 332 million people in coastal and low-lying areas. Over 70 million Bangladeshis, 22 million Vietnamese, and six million Egyptians could be affected by global warming-related flooding. - Emerging health risks, with an additional population of up to 400 million people facing the risk of malaria.Faeces is a natural part of the ecosphere, but in the wrong place it is pollution. Water is good to drink when thirsty, but polydipsia can kill.
Post new comment