The current cycle of the sun is taking a long time to start, triggering different explanations, writes Mark Lawson in an article entitled: ‘Scientists disagree over lack of sunspots,’ published in the Australian Financial Review (subscription required).
Excerpt: Despite being dismissed by a number of scientists as of little consequence to the present discussion of climate change, the issue of the sun’s activity – or apparent lack of it – has been the subject of considerable debate in recent months. Scientists who concern themselves with the fledgling subject of space weather (changes in the sun’s emissions) have been wondering where all the sunspots have gone, when they might come back and what effect this will have on climate…..
Another scientist who says he has identified a link between the sun’s activity and climate – in particular between rainfall in Australia and sunspots – is Robert Baker, an associate professor at the University of New England’s School of Human and Environmental Studies. Baker tells the AFR he has identified a strong correlation between sunspots, the sun’s magnetic activity and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). He says variations in the earth’s magnetic field account for about half of the variation in the SOI, and that changes in sunspot activity as an indicator of magnetic activity can be correlated with rainfall patterns in south-east Australia . The Bureau of Meteorology has rejected Baker’s reasoning and a paper by him was not accepted by the Australian Meterological Magazine. But Baker says his analysis has been accepted by the peer-reviewed journal Solar Terrestrial Physics for publication in December.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well, a correlation is not cause…. But I tell you what, It’s a far better one than CO2 and Temperature at the moment.
10 year flatline in Temperature despite a 5% increase in CO2….. Oppsies. Probably time for the AGW mob to “adjust” the data again… eh?
“Despite being dismissed by a number of scientists as of little consequence to the present discussion of climate change, the issue of the sun’s activity – or apparent lack of it – has been the subject of considerable debate in recent months.”
The relationship between funding and position on solar inactivity is under-examined to date in the media.
Most predictions by ‘Heliophysicists’ included in symposia rely on statistical measures of recent Schwabe cycles re: their maximum sunspot numbers.
In fact, the correlation between sunspot number and other measures of solar activity, e.g., 10 cm radio flux, or geomagnetic indicies, or solar flaring is not strong in terms of physical phenomena.
These scientists are attempting to limit the discussion to predictions they can provide without reference to their utility and in turn maximize their income stream.
Unfortunately, the sun is frustrating their concerted efforts and brinkmanship is now their sole consolation as all of Western science has missed the mark.
The suns effect on our climate is very complex and has both short term effects which are not to difficult to spot but there are also delayed effects which are much more difficult to identify.
There is a very good website, woodfortrees.org which is an excellent source of unbiased data. Reference this web site, it can be seen that the TSI from peak to minimum of a normal sunspot cycle is in the order of 0.1 to 0.15% of the 1366 watts/m2. this may not seem much but when you consider the earth is warmed about 260 deg K by the sun 0.1% is 0.25 deg C which is very significant. Now add to this the solar wind effect which impacts the cosmic ray muon flux density thus impacting the lower cloud density and the influence of the sun can not be considered insignificant. Whether or not the suns magnetic field oscillations which appear to be related to the sunspot activity have any effect on our ocean currents is I think totally unknown but it is possible.
The NOAA Boulder sun spot web site has just released the July sunspot numbers and I think at 0.5 for the month a new record low has been established so we may see a long delay to the start of cycle 24 which should produce some very interesting data for the sun spot watchers. Lets just hope we are not entering another Maunder minimum, albeit this would blow the IPCC totally away but the negative effect of such a cold spell would be disastrous for the world’s agriculture.
Summer, which hasn’t happened yet, Autumn which seems to be on us now, Winter which I am dreading this year, Spring I hope will warm us up a bit.
Otherwise our familiar seasons. Temperature changes of 15, 20, 25 degrees C over a period of a few short months. Crops not growing in Winter. Water running short in Summer. All very normal. Been going on for more than 60 years to my belief.
What is so exciting about a possible 1 degree C increase in temperature per century?
Barry,
you need to include the effects of the orbital anomaly of the earth. The top of atmosphere intensity varies over a range of about 100 yearly. Whether the higher intensity is on the northern or southern hemisphere may make a difference as the energy will be absorbed more efficiently by the ocean. Currently TSI max is during southern hemisphere summer and minimum during northern hemisphere summer.
Here is a link to the TSI data from SORCE:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/SORCE_L3_TSI_DM_V0008_20030225_20080812.txt
You will notice that they give 2 sets of measurements, one for 1 AU and one for Earth Distance. It is thought provoking.
Thanks for the info I have saved that website and it will need some study.
Another thought just popped into my mind, I read an article recently about the gravitational pull on the sun by the planets and the effect it has of causing the sun to process around the center of the solar system due to the changing configuration of the planets. This evidently causes the rotation of our world to vary very slightly, in terms of ms’s for a 24 hr day now this changing rotational speed although very small could have an effect on the principal ocean currents ( bit like the gas sloshing around in your gas tank ). Does anyone out there have any thoughts along these lines?
We are indeed lucky that the sun is coolish ATM otherwise the current awful lack of sea ice would be more awful (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) and the near record global temperatures (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jul/global.html#temp) would probably be a record. Let us all hope the lack of sun-spots continues, and provides us a buffer from man made global warming.
BTW Jen, how is that list of peer reviewed climate science papers from the local sceptics coming along?
Interesting TSI dataset. We are continually told that the 1 to 1.5% change in TSI could not possibly cause significant Earth variations, but that percentage is the TSI standardised to 1 AU. If you take the variation at the earth by using the earth position column, the variation can hit 6%. Surely that would have a significant affect?
David, we’re not here to do your homework for you. If you can’t find sceptical peer-reviewed papers, then you’re not trying and are simply reinforcing your own bias.
This is a list from another website. Have fun.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
– Patrick J. Michaels
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 1998)
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
David, instead of reading other peoples propaganda “the current awful lack of sea ice ” go to woodfortrees.org and just get the raw unbiased data then you can make up your own mind about such statements. Herr Gobals Hitler’s propaganda minister once said ” if you tell a big enough lie ofter enough sooner or later everyone will believe it” I think the IPCC and all its hangers on have taken that statement to a new height. You will find that over the last 30 years the SH sea ice has increased and the NH ice has decreased about 1/2 million sq Km but has been increasing for the past 2 years. Yes it is cyclic yes we have been through a normal warm cycle for which there are a number of reasons. But major change absolutely no way. Also the Antarctic ice by satellite readings is the thickest it has been since the readings were started 30 years ago.
Good list Joel and of course it is only a fraction of what is out there if I may suggest a few more.
I think the best fundamental physics paper is Climate Change by John Nicol.
Heinz Thieme has produced a number of papers from a thermodynamics point of view.
I think one of the foremost expert ice core scientists is Zbigniew Jaworowski, he has totally destroyed the IPCC ice core data. Also J.J.Drake Ice Core Corrections is very interesting.
Joel, nice try.
Perhaps your next list my consist of LOCAL climate sceptics and PEER reviewed science journals.
Perhaps when you are done you might also tell the readers of this blog about the “editorial” policy of E&E and the why a climate paper would appear in a “journal” called “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”.
david:
“Joel, nice try.”
First you ask for them, pretending that they don’t exist. Then when you get them you look for idiotic little excuses and qualifications that you can use to dismiss them. That’s why alarmists have no credibility.
David
So tell us what the “editorial policy” is of E & E then.
Incidentally ‘peer review’ actually means not publishing anything that upsets the funding system.
It replaced “refereeing” scientific papers when the post modernists hijacked academia some 30 years ago. Supporters of Socratic Science are all about ensuring a scientfic consensus, and this is what peer review is all about – maintaining scientific consensus.
Except it isn’t science.
This subject was given a thorough going through over at Anthony Watts’s site last week.Leif Svaalgard was involved in a lot of the debate
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/13/spotless-days-400-and-counting/
David,
Why do sceptics have to be local? That qualifier is moronic and indefensible.
The list wasn’t mine. I don’t agree with the listing of every single paper (nor have I read but a fraction). Nevertheless, there were also papers from:
Climate Research
Geophysical Research Letters
Journal of Climate
Journal of Geophysical Research
You’re playing the consensus card and its garbage.
I was in 3 different countries in July (Canada, US, Australia). All ridiculously cold. The contention that this July was the 5th warmest on record is hard to stomach. UAH shows it to be pretty average.
The work on the sun’s influence on climate by Ian Wilson is very interesting:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Come on now guys – David is more than correct. E & E – – duh! – really – ROTFL to the nth. Most of the above is quasi-philosophical dross – hardly science. Sceptics just don’t publish science.
Ahh
Another soliliquy from Luke. Are his ramblings here paid as advertisements for the AGO?
errr No! Are yours paid by the mining industry?
David – Isn’t Robert Baker mentioned in the article ‘local?’ Bob Carter springs to mind who looks at climate on geological timescales, and Prof Aynsley Kellow who was a referee for Chapter 19 in the [IPCC] Report on ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment,’ but doesn’t agree with its conclusions despite being a signatory. That’s 3 without really trying.
Generally speaking the longer a solar cycle takes to come to peak activity the weaker its going to be. This is cycle 24 and the solar people were divided on how strong it would be. But they appear to have been united on the idea that solar cycle 25 will be incredibly weak.
Looking at the historical data you will see that you can get away with one weak solar cycle and you won’t necessarily have much of a change in the air temperature. This is because the air temperature is the tail and the dog is accumulated energy in the oceans.
But you won’t ever have two weak cycles in a row and not get dramatic cooling. 23 was weak by 20th century standards. If 24 is weak the cooling trend just started will continue and it will set us up for a truly catastrophic plunge during the time period of solar cycles 25 and 26.
Leftwingers never pay up on bets. But if you could legally lock it in, you could bet your last dollar on the fact that the 2030’s will be substantially colder than the 90’s. This won’t be a line-ball call and even Goddard won’t be able to finesse the data away.
This will be a serious disaster.
Graeme; I am interested in how they project out to cycle 25 and 26. I have found papers by solar physicists which explain the prediction for the coming cycle 24 based on the relative strength of the polar to the toroidal magnetic fields. Statistically I understand how past solar cycles can be related to climate. I agree the end of 23 does not seem to be here yet and the sunspot number for july was at a record low so we have been 3 years in the single or low double digit numbers with no sign of recovery I agree it does not look good.
E&E is garbage, but there are some credible journals in there.
However, when James Annan is listed as a “skeptic”, you begin to realize that you’d better read each paper on the list before you believe that the research is actually questioning the consensus position.
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
Louis Hissink,
please do not insult Luke by implying that he would take money for knowingly promoting false science.
True Believers RARELY stoop to taking money for propagandising others, at least publicly!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
dhogaza,
yes, reading papers carefully is always the right thing to do. I have noticed in several climate papers that there seems to be a de rigeur statement about AGW even when the paper would seem to undercut the AGW science.
Australia’s IPS just pushed their cycle 24 forecast 6 months into the future.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/australian-space-weather-agency-pushes-solar-cycle-24-up-6-months/
“But you won’t ever have two weak cycles in a row and not get dramatic cooling. 23 was weak by 20th century standards. If 24 is weak the cooling trend just started will continue and it will set us up for a truly catastrophic plunge during the time period of solar cycles 25 and 26.
Leftwingers never pay up on bets. But if you could legally lock it in, you could bet your last dollar on the fact that the 2030’s will be substantially colder than the 90’s. This won’t be a line-ball call and even Goddard won’t be able to finesse the data away.
This will be a serious disaster. ”
So, are you making a prediction of an ice age?
“Leftwingers never pay up on bets.”
They’re called welchers here; no credit is extended to them.
“So, are you making a prediction of an ice age?”
A “LITTLE” ICE AGE YES.
Thats what the science says. There is simply no getting around that. But so far I do believe that we ought to be able to avoid the full-blown version if at first we can defeat socialism in science.
Each new little ice age has a more than 50% chance of being more severe than the last. Thats just a fact.
But I surmise that the glacial period only gets locked in when the ice interferes witht the ocean currents. So we can avoid this side of it hopefully but only so long as we are a free and viable civilisation. You leave it up to nature and nature will cock it up every time.
But yes we are on the cusp of a so-called “little ice age”.
No question about that at all.
Things change if you only go on the scientific evidence. It changes everything. The prattling of puny humans becomes meaningless. The leftists have their mantras and its the commie version of wishing upon a star.
THE LEFTISTS THINK IN THEIR HEARTS THAT IF A MILLION OF THEM CAN LIE A MILLION TIMES IT WILL ALTER REALITY.
But it won’t.
So yes if we are only going on scientific evidence then we have a “little-ice-age” on our hands.
The decade I can be absolutely sure of is the 2030’s. But I speculate that the cooling will move apace pretty much from here on in.
“Graeme; I am interested in how they project out to cycle 25 and 26. I have found papers by solar physicists which explain the prediction for the coming cycle 24 based on the relative strength of the polar to the toroidal magnetic fields. Statistically I understand how past solar cycles can be related to climate. I agree the end of 23 does not seem to be here yet and the sunspot number for july was at a record low so we have been 3 years in the single or low double digit numbers with no sign of recovery I agree it does not look good.”
They cannot predict cycle 26 as far as I know. I said “during cycle 26” for entirely other reasons. Air temperature correlates with the prior cycle even better than with the current one for very good reasons.
Don’t ask me for the Sami Solanki link that proves this because all the good stuff seems to go AWOL on the net.
As to cycle 25 it appears that a consensus has developed due to a surface conveyer on the sun. This surface conveyer has a big leadtime and so it wasn’t 25 that had the doubt factor about it. But the predictions of 24 can sound like omens. They can sound like omens much to the delight of science-frauds and failed analysts like Quiggin., who calls all people who look for patterns “cycle-cranks”
Thats where the disparity is here. With 24 they had to go on prior patterns and rules of thumb. The whole thing is done on rules of thumb at the moment but this is a valid thing.
But the reason that they are so sure of the disaster of cycle 25 is that they bore witness to the surface conveyer. Whereas their speculations of cycle 24 were far more indirect.
I say that the 2030’s will be disastrously cold because thats the only decade I’d wager my entire superannuation on.
But being less of a pussy about it, and waging a good bet, I would suggest to you that the cooling will start pretty much right away. With only one or two up years all the way down to the 2030’s.
Its a weakass thing to say that the cooling WILL!!!! start pretty much right away. Because as we all know its already started.
You might get some mild uptick after Forbush events, after the next solar maximum, or during the period after the gulf stream has been in a strong phase. But I would see a sort of situation of 8 years of cooling against 3 years of feeble warming and a sort of continual oscillation down clear through the 2030’s.
It is plain silly to be predicting an ice age on a slow solar cycle.
The DAULTON MINIMUM is the only possibility at this time.Beyond that is sheer speculation.
No no you have it wrong. Progressively worsening “little-ice-ages” have to be considered the default position.
As tragic as they are and will be for puny humans they are the norm. They require no predictive capacity. The idea that we might avoid them is where the speculative thought comes in.
The last glacial period apparently began in this slow fashion around 112000 years ago. That at least is what I’ve been able to glean. But it didn’t really get locked in until much later. Perhaps from memory about 83000 years ago. The geneticists tell us that by 70 000 years ago most of the human race had been slaughtered.
I say this at the risk of getting our environmentalists excessively excited at the prospect of a renewed slaughter.
We were in full-blown glacial conditions at 70 000 years ago. And it oscillated up and down from there. Research needs to look at physical obstructions to the gulf stream to see how this nastiness gets locked in.
My understanding is that things were not too much different at 70,000 years ago, as compared to the ice maximum of 18000 years ago.
We can stop this disaster if we try.
“We can stop this disaster if we try.”
How? What do we have to do?
I just told you. A number of things can be done to stop the glacial period being locked in. Nothing can be done to prevent this next little-ice-age. But there are some things that might be done to prevent such occurences from locking us into an endless deep freeze. The most important is heading off any obstruction to the gulf-stream.
For example Heinrich events lead to a lot of ice being dumped on the Gulf stream periodically. And each time this is done that sends us backwards and stops us getting out of the glacial period. Particularly harmful is the ice that leads to Heinrich events off Hudson bay.
We could find a way to reduce aerosols. Not only human aerosols but those from volcanoes. We could find a way to reduce friction here and there in the ocean currents and particularly the gulf stream.
Ice moves like a slow-motion river. We could strategically nuke some parts of the land ice sheet to stop it moving forward. We might cover large areas of farmland with Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene. Sometimes it may be possible for someone to buy up ice-covered land cheaply, cover it with Ethylene tetrafluoroethylene, and reclaim this land for agriculture. Certainly the ice-damaged land would be cheaper so thats an economic opportunity.
We don’t want to be getting rid of sea ice. Because sea ice is a great insulator. Heinrich events happen, for example, due to heat buildup because of ices insulative capacity. But there is an exception where the ocean currents are concerned. We want to pre-empt ice getting near to anywhere that they may obstruct the oceans currents.
Of course heating is dead easy to reverse. We would simply take the SO2 that we had scrubbed out when making liquified coal. Then what we’d do is when a commercial airliner was flying near the equator in open water it would shoot an SO2 missile into the upper stratosphere. Cheap and easy. No problem at all. But the situation of problematic warming isn’t going to occur in the first place.
“he Bureau of Meteorology has rejected Baker’s reasoning and a paper by him was not accepted by the Australian Meterological Magazine.”
So much for peer review. That ought to be the end of this particular cult. This shows that stupidity in the public sector is our gravest problem.