Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

First Australian NASA Astronaut: An Ice Age Cometh

By

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Excerpt: The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth’s climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon’s Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. […] All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

The Australian: Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

Reader Interactions

Comments

  3. gavin says

    Paul: Re odd data presentations – Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow in 1812 and lack of sunspots; we can trace this one back to Junk Science around the time of Bali. Hardly news hey

  5. REX says

    My last comment for pondering for today: Is this not a watershed article for the Australian? They are usually quite non-committal or even pro AGW. This seems to be quite a strong anti-AGW stance (especially inviting an well known Australian Astronaut to write article). Maybe they want to amongst the first mainstraim to get on the AGW Nonsense bandwagon…..

  7. Louis Hissink says

    Given the proclivity of the AGWer’s to live in simple rural lifestyles, in a sustainable manner, it will probably mean that they will be the first to succumb to the colder weather, eschewing the trappings of modern civilisation like oil-based heaters to warm their already figid hearts.

  8. Luke says

    And REX if you’d read your own PDO article:

    “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

    errr … yep !

    and “course it will probably go down for summer and then go up for next winter” – well yes but that’s why we’re looking at the seasonal numbers and trends not the annual cycle. Strange that summer is warmer than winter.

  9. Luke says

    “Given the proclivity of the AGWer’s to live in simple rural lifestyles” – they do? – evidence Louis pls.

    And if they are attempting to live “in a sustainable manner” – your words – are you implying that you’re not?

  10. Eyrie says

    If Phil Chapman is right we could just, maybe do something about this. If we are as a species, smart, dedicated and a bit lucky.

    We might need all of Phil’s measures plus mirrors in space. Or for civilisation to survive, move a good fraction of it off planet.

    The greenies aren’t going to like the solutions though.

    We might need lots of mass in orbit or to Earth escape. Search for “Project Orion”(not the name for the current NASA Apollo V2.0 garbage).

  11. gavin says

    Rex can’t read between the lines.

    “Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

    the sea saw is still swinging

  12. gavin says

    “Josh Willis on climate change: Global warming is real” March 31 2008

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx

    “But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread. Nor does it erase the eight inches of sea level rise we’ve experienced in the past 100 years. Both of these are important indicators of human-kind’s effect on the climate”

  13. Louis Hissink says

    Luke,

    “Sustainable manner” ?? All living things do by definition, so why you loopy greenies then want to add an extra layer of sustainability?

    Or does sustainable mean living off the land in splendid autarchic isolation so that you don’t have trade and barter with other human beings? The zenith of your utopian thinking, living sustainably so you don’t have to rely on anyone else for your needs. THat’s what you mean by sustainable isn’t?

    On that basis I am most assuredly not living a sustainable lifestyle – but hey, that’s capitalism which you and your doom-mongers are trying to destroy.

  14. Louis Hissink says

    Eyrie,

    Trying to control climate is as futule as trying to control earthquakes, tsunamis, or solar CME’s. We can’t but as humans seem able to live in the most frigid to tropical climates, we know how to adapt.

    The people who can adapt most easily are those in the societies that adopted capitalism. Those who can’t are those who have rejected capitalism, or who were never given the chance to put it into practice.

    Climate change is a non-problem, and the correct policy for a non-problem is to do nothing.

  15. Louis Hissink says

    Re Josh Willis:

    Oceanic warming for 50 years ties in very well with the CO2 increase, meaning that the CO2 concentration is being driven by the oceans, not vice versa.

    As we are now in a cooling period, CO2 should start to decrease after a lapse of some 5-7 years.

    This seems to be occurring now.

  16. DHMO says

    The AGW supporters are saying we can change the weather on a global scale. The proposition is that humans have warmed up the Earth and if we would just live a more frugal life then the temperature would drop. So what is the ideal temperature? I doubt it is known if it does drop does that affect us is it a good thing or not? Were prehistoric times all lovely without any bad weather until wicked humans came along and ruined it? Scientific study maintains there were mainly periods of glaciation with shorter warm periods between, are they deluded and Gore is right? If not what caused the warm periods? There were probably not a lot of humans around during the past interglacials and certainly at the beginning of this one.

  17. REX says

    Well meteorologists will keep their jobs and careers… AGW “Climate scientists” could keep their jobs if they weren’t so stubborn. Global cooling models could be the way to go. There is the whole area of sun-earth climate relationship modelling as well to be studied… (not being sarcastic BTW)
    For a geophysicist (with obvious very high knowledge of climate/meteorology being an astronaut) such as Chapman to write such an article is quite revealing. Re: PDO article. The point here is that PDO is on its way back with concurrent Solar minima and La nina (cold ocean waters) see this article…
    http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news256486

  18. gavin says

    Lorne Gunter (National Post) Feb 5, 07 wrote “Charlatans! Frauds! Crooks!,” you’d scream. And you’d be right.
    “So how come so many otherwise smart people are eager to swallow whole the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s global warming report when the scientific studies behind it will not be released until May at the earliest?”

    Well it seems Gunter is prone to do snow jobs on ocean scientists like Willis and is the source of all “cooling” since early Feb 07.

  20. Luke says

    Well past ice ages seem to have onset with declining radiation at 60 degrees north. Are there any changes?

  21. MikeM says

    Sorry to spoil the fun of spoiling the fun, but Phil Chapman has made a mistake.

    In 2007 the planet was 0.07 degrees cooler than the immediately previous peak in 2005, not 0.7 degrees cooler. He is out by a factor of 10. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s climate change site has the data, at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

    There wasn’t a “rapid temperature decline in 2007”. There was a very slight temperature decline.

  22. Julian says

    Interesting if you apply the Precautionary Principle to Phil Chapman’s scenario. We now have two results from the PC – do something to stop more CO2 emissions or start increasing CO2 emissions! Given the much more serious impacts of an Ice Age, logic would suggest leaning towards increasing our CO2. But like a Monty Python moview, the Human species is doing exactly the opposite.

  23. Louis Hissink says

    MikeM

    So the sources that Chapman cites are wrong re the 0.7C and the BOM is right with 0.07?

    I would probably go for a newspaper editing error more than anything else.

  25. James Mayeau says

    We still haven’t hit 70 F past mid April.
    “I’m dreaming of a white May Day…”
    Just like Stalin used to know…”

  26. Eyrie says

    According to the last link from REX the global temperature in early 2008 was about 0.7 deg C below that in early 2007.

    No more misleading than the disinformation from the AGW crowd.

    Louis, I have no doubt that we can change the climate of the planet and certainly do on regional scales by land clearing, urbanisation etc. It is just that adding a little CO2 is a dramatically inefficient way to do it even though warming is probably desirable. In the meantime we should enjoy the benefits of relatively low cost carbon based energy while planning on going to better energy generation methods like nuclear and working on moving part of our civilisation off planet.

  27. James Mayeau says

    What’s all this about Australian Astronauts anyway?
    Is there anything made in America anymore?

    Next thing their gonna try and claim Cate Blanchett and Mel Gibson.

  28. Louis Hissink says

    Eyrie,

    I disagree – we can affect the local climate, and we do, but those effects are within the “noise” of climate variability. What we cannot do is change the climate of the planet in a global sense. We are subject to the vagaries of climate, not it to we. The total mass of humanity with its emissions, has no hope of affecting the thermal balance of the earth.

    We are a carbon based lifeform and it is natural we utilise carbon, in its various forms, for energy.

    As for Chapman’s observations about sunspot activity, this phenomenon seems to have parallels with hurricane/cyclone activity on earth, in so far that both phenomena seem to migrate from lower to higher latitudes over a season or cycle.

    There is a rule of thumb in empirical science that states that if a novel phenomena walks, sounds, and looks like a duck, then in all probability it is also a duck.

    In terms of the sun, sunspots, according to electric plasma theory, are possibly electric current discharges from the plasma torus surrounding the sun; that solar torus receives energy from the galactic electric circuit. Kristian Birkeland showed experimentally that varying the input current to his terrella model that the plasma torus moved up and down in altitude, and it might be possible that sunspot activity is modulated by this process.

    Earth’s equivalent torus are the Van Allen Belts, and if they are modulated by the sun, but on a shorter time scale, then the seasonal migration of hurricanes and cyclones might be the result of a similar mechanism.

    So if we have a period of zero sunspot activity, then we might suppose the galactic currents have reached a cyclic minimum, reducing energy to the sun, which by virtue of the electric circuit of which the earth is part, also causes a reduction in energy to the earth. Electric currents when passing through resistive loads generate heat. Less current less heat.

    So there is a very real chance that if the sunspot activity remains minimal for some time, then we can anticpate another Dalton minimum or another LIA.

    And there isn’t anything you can do about it. Burn more oil and gas to increase atmospheric
    CO2? Nope, because the oceans will sequester it, as they do now.

    Humans are quite adept at solving problems except when governed by utopians of various creeds.

  31. Luke says

    So Louis what are units of measurement of the Sun’s climate influence you suggest. What instrument would one use to measure a changing effect? And are there any trends in the time series of these data. Let’s get into some detail.

  32. J.Hansford. says

    “`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
    All mimsy were the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe.”

    …. Without science we get….. Poetry…

    LOL

  35. Paul Biggs says

    I’d have left out the ‘0.7C in 2007’ if I was Phil Chapman, but it’s his opinion, not mine. Lower future solar activity isn’t controversial – even Lockwood and Frohlich make the claim. The question is what will be the effect on climate?

    I think we’ll have another guest post from Peter Harris soon, who has a detailed argument as to why he believes that a new big ice age is imminent.

    Interesting new article here that should be submitted for publication:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/As_Earth_Cools.pdf

  36. King Canute says

    Paul: Two things: First the 98-08 slot is too convenient for bloggers. Second any unrealized warming in the oceans is the continuing rise in sea level.

    Ice melt wins over this apparent atmospheric “cooling”.

  37. Louis Hissink says

    King Canute

    The inferred rising sea level will simply increase the volume, and more importantly, area of ocean, and increase the CO2 buffering system – thus any increase in ocean will rapidly requilibrate with the atmosphere chemically to maintain the 1:50 ratio between CO2 in air and CO2 in ocean.

    Sea level rise is not so much due to ice melting but continued emission from the crust. You know that pretty white quartz that is common in granite and quartz veins? Its got a lot of water in it. Quartz without water is glass – so I raise Endersbee’s excellent hypothesis that the water we are pumping out of the ground isn’t being replaced by rainfall, but remains on surface and increases ocean volume.

    Given the continual eruption of lava from oceanic ridges and submarine volcanoes, It more than likely that these vents to the mantle are also adding to the ocean volumes.

    Since no one has any numbers on this phenomenon, it is appreciated that these factors cannot be implemented in any climate model either, making those models even less representative of the earth climate system.

    This is what happens to science when the humanities departments wander into the physical sciences – all sorts of pseudoscience gets put as PC “fact”.

  38. Warwick Hughes says

    Re Phil Chapman’s article in The Australian; the quote of the globe cooling 0.7 in 2007 is no misprint.
    See my blog article and view the data for yourself. “Large warm anomaly over Asia in March while tropics cool; is this due to mass transport of tropical air ? April 14th,”
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=158
    click on link to graphic;
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/msu0708.gif
    You can argue over the exact amount of cooling but it is much nearer 0.7 than 0.07.
    I have not sen the RSS data.

  39. Paul Biggs says

    King Canute – I think it’s true that atmospheric warming/cooling is a poor metric for climate change, but that seems to be a peg where alarmists hang their hats.

    Ocean heat content shows no warming for about 4 years – if that continues in to 5 or 6 or more – that would be very interesting. The bulk of the earth’s ice is stored in the Antarctic, where there ain’t much melting, and the Arctic sea ice/Greenland have yet to reach the lows of the MWP.

  42. Louis Hissink says

    Luke

    The measurements of what? How do you measure climate, especially when it isn’t a physical process or object but an abstraction? It’s a total qualitative assessment, and thus un-measurable except by some arbitary definition.

    As for the Sun, well, let’s get the physics right first, and then we can work out what to measure.

  43. Luke says

    So you’re proposing some unmeasurable magic then Louis? Sounds sus to me.

    Presumably the Sun is undergoing some changes (as you describe it) which is affecting the Earth’s climate. So – like what?

    Come on I’m asking you for some detail. Really straight question. Surely you’re not just hand waving.

  44. Louis Hissink says

    Luke,

    I have not proposed any unmeasureable magic. I simply said that climate is an abstraction which cannot be quantified mathematically, and thus from extrapolation, by computer modelling.

    Your reply is thus a nonesense.

    “Presumably the sun is undergoing some changes” suggests you think I have created by magic, solar variation. Even the British economist Jevons, recognised tha relationship between sunspots and climate, (but know knowing the precise physical cause).

    (That is empirical science, by the way).

    So others have put the idea that changes in sunspot activity affect the earth’s climate as reflected in economic activity related wheat production (see Jevons) and of course as Stuart Clark noted in his book, “The Sun Kings”, the relationship between sunspots and weather, and hence climate.

    At undergraduate university courses the procedure is to instruct students in the means by which to inquire, from when they are then, if intellectually compelled from interest, to work things out for themselves by reading the literature.

    I can little more than sigh.

  45. Louis Hissink says

    PS: Luke, arbitrary means inventing some factor by which an unmeasureable could be quantified. It’s the deductive method at its best – propose some “what if”, like climate sensitivity, assume it is true, and then cantilever an enormous theoretical edifice from this hypothetical foundation.

    That you misunderstand the first sentence tells us that you have probably misunderstood almost everything climate realists have put to the debate.

  46. Luke says

    So essentially Louis – you have no idea do you. Some blustery smoke screen diversion about climate definitions and for all your ranting about electric universes all you can offer is some dodgy failed explanation about sunspots and magic mechanisms which can’t be measured. You’re supposed to be a guru of this stuff

    So here you are at the critical moment and you’ve wussed out and said “read the literature”. I’m shattered

  47. Louis Hissink says

    Luke,

    As Jennifer asked me to write a post here on it, I will do so, in time. And so you will have to wait.

    The rest of your post seems like an intemperate, mouth frothing rant.

    And I have not offered any dodgy failed explanation – rather it is you who seem to have no idea.

    And no I have not wussed out, I simply have not done your bidding.

    Infuriating, isn’t it.

  48. Mr T says

    Again Paul just posts some newspaper clipping!
    Why not actually post some science?
    Does anyone here know how much colder it would have to be to get a new “ice age” (ignoring for the moment that we are in one).
    Any indication, any at all that temperatures are plummeting?

    I’d say the answer to both questions is “no” and “no”.
    But this is not surprising as this blog isn’t interested in exploring ACTUAL science, rather just promoting memes and promoting a particular paradigm.

  49. Louis Hissink says

    Interesting – is it possible that actual people who post here deal with actual science, while pseudopeople deal with pseudoscience?

    As for plummetting temperatures, but Halls Creek this time of the year is prematurely cooler – one does not usually put the quilt on the bed until June or July, but for some strange reason thinsg are a lot colder this time than last year or the previous year (2006) when April was a scorcher.

  51. James Mayeau says

    Here’s hoping we don’t get a new ice age. I like the warm. I haven’t seen a compelling reason for why today’s climate is the ideal that we should spend billions to maintain.
    It’s cold outside. This weather sucks. Bring on the warmin.

  52. Louis Hissink says

    James Mayeau

    The bit of about ice ages (not the type like the LIA) is that they are also associated with biosphere mass extinctions.

    So the arrival of an ice age would seem to be sudden rather than gradual.

  53. Paul Biggs says

    I often post newspaper articles for discussion – science can then be posted in comments. I post peer reviewed articles when I spot interesting ones, especially if the mainstream media are likey to ignore them.

  55. bambi says

    To th poster way back who claims that 8 inches or so f sea level rise is proof f AGW. 1 ich per decde is the currentrate of rise in sea level and this hs been happening for many decades. Current value of waming compared with average for last 20 yers is .3 degrees for the globe, made up of a positive tend in th northern H and negative one in the southern one. see latest figures from John Christy. See sea level calculator. AGW isa caste built on sand.