Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted

By

Three separate studies of the sun all predict that we may be about to enter a period of low temperatures because of unusually low solar activity. Comparisons are being made with the last grand minimum, the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, which occurred between 1645 and 1715. Known as the Maunder Minimum this was a period when crops failed across Europe.

Following is the press release from the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, being held at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces…

WHAT’S DOWN WITH THE SUN?
MAJOR DROP IN SOLAR ACTIVITY PREDICTED

A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, which is half of the Sun’s 22-year magnetic interval since the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with
virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.

Hill is the lead author on one of three papers on these results being presented this week. Using data from the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) of six observing stations around the world, the team translates surface pulsations caused by sound reverberating through the Sun into models of the internal structure. One of their discoveries is an east-west zonal wind flow inside the Sun, called the torsional oscillation, which starts at mid-latitudes and migrates towards the equator. The latitude of this wind stream matches the new spot formation in each cycle, and successfully predicted the late onset of the current Cycle 24.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

In the second paper, Matt Penn and William Livingston see a long-term weakening trend in the strength of sunspots, and predict that by Cycle 25 magnetic fields erupting on the Sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Spots are formed when intense magnetic flux tubes erupt from the interior and keep cooled gas from circulating back to the interior. For typical sunspots this magnetism has a strength of 2,500 to 3,500 gauss (Earth’s magnetic field is less than 1 gauss at the surface); the field must reach at least 1,500 gauss to form a dark spot.

Using more than 13 years of sunspot data collected at the McMath-Pierce Telescope at Kitt Peak in Arizona, Penn and Livingston observed that the average field strength declined about 50 gauss per year during Cycle 23 and now in Cycle 24. They also observed that spot temperatures have risen exactly as expected for such changes in the magnetic field. If the trend continues, the field strength will drop below the 1,500 gauss threshold and spots will largely disappear as the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to overcome convective forces on the solar surface.

Moving outward, Richard Altrock, manager of the Air Force’s coronal research program at NSO’s Sunspot, NM, facilities has observed a slowing of the “rush to the poles,” the rapid poleward march of magnetic activity observed in the Sun’s faint corona. Altrock used four decades of observations with NSO’s 40-cm (16-inch) coronagraphic telescope at Sunspot.

“A key thing to understand is that those wonderful, delicate coronal features are actually powerful, robust magnetic structures rooted in the interior of the Sun,” Altrock explained. “Changes we see in the corona reflect changes deep inside the Sun.”

Altrock used a photometer to map iron heated to 2 million degrees C (3.6 million F). Stripped of half of its electrons, it is easily concentrated by magnetism rising from the Sun. In a well-known pattern, new solar activity emerges first at about 70 degrees latitude at the start of a cycle, then towards the equator as the cycle ages. At the same time, the new magnetic fields push remnants of the older cycle as far as 85 degrees poleward.

“In cycles 21 through 23, solar maximum occurred when this rush appeared at an average latitude of 76 degrees,” Altrock said. “Cycle 24 started out late and slow and may not be strong enough to create a rush to the poles, indicating we’ll see a very weak solar maximum in 2013, if at all. If the rush to the poles fails to complete, this creates a tremendous dilemma for the theorists, as it would mean that Cycle 23’s magnetic field will not completely disappear from the polar regions (the rush to the poles accomplishes this feat). No one knows what the Sun will do in that case.”

All three of these lines of research to point to the familiar sunspot cycle shutting down for a while.

“If we are right,” Hill concluded, “this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

These results have been presented at the current meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, New Mexico State University in Las Cruces:

http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/

Citations:

1. “Large-Scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum — Where Is Cycle 25?” by Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T.P. Larson, J. Schou & M. J. Thompson

2. “A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor” by W. C. Livingston, M. Penn & L. Svalgard

3. “Whither Goes Cycle 24? A View from the Fe XIV Corona” by R. C.
Altrock

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. spangled drongo says

    This will really endanger waterfront property.

    The waterfront will be miles away.

    How can we generate more CO2?

  2. Neville says

    We are certainly living in interesting times and these times may extend for decades to come.
    If the sun does a go slow for many years to come it will rather wreck the co2 driver theory and ensure we will be wasting billions of $ and years of wasted time and energy as well.

    If a Maunder minimum type period developed we in Australia would be in a fortunate position compared to the Nth hemisphere countries and the Canadian grain growers would certainly face much colder and more extreme growing conditions.

    Let’s hope none of this happens because the results would probably be impossible to predict in this interconnected world we now live in.

  3. cementafriend says

    good one Jen,
    L&P have been continuously adjusting their predictions -at last they are admitting there is a problem with their model. Lief S has been insisting that the sun is not responsible for climate but appears to be conceding that there are changes in magnetic fields which may affect earths’ conditions including climate ie the sun, which is affected by planetry movements (as the moon causes tides on the earth), does more than just provide light and heat.
    Electric and magnetic fields, gamma rays, cosmic rays, formation of clouds, movements of ocean currents, jet streams, crustal movements etc are some of the many subjects beyond the technical understanding of so-called climate scientist

  6. Luke says

    What’s this ? A sudden jump to “alarmist” apocalyptic predictions by sceptics? Surely not?

    Such bedwetters…

  7. Robert says

    Any cooling – if it does occur – will be described as a “masking effect” by warmists, as they tippy-toe off the stage one by one. They will then stealthily change their focus to other things that gratify their Calvinist urgings. And manage to stay on the payroll, of course.

    The danger of warmists changing their focus is that they will not change their mentality. It’s a bit like when the Left adopted The Market…after a while you wished they’d never heard of Adam Smith.

    The hysteria over warming and sea levels may pass, but the puritanical disdain, the facile modelling and the belief in Big Levers may persist.

  8. Luke says

    What typical sceptic political tripe Robert – indulgent sceptic waffle. Calvinist-commies – what hybridisation …. Calvinist commie neo-marxist watermelons greenie persons eh? vis a vis denialist drongos

    Engage neurones. Solar output reduces – greenhouse effect reduces. It’s a calculation. The final outcome depends on how much. And – just think what happens when solar activity ramps up.

    (if indeed any of this solar stuff actually happens – the nauseating hypocrisy of sceptics jumping on new information – normally any mainstream science paper in the climate area would be greeted with a barrage of abuse – why be selective in this case – oh I forgot rampant hypocrisy)

  9. Neville says

    Luke, Timmy and Ross tell us there is zero we can do to change the climate back to the nirvana of ……, when everything was hunky dory.

    So who’s the nauseating hypocrite when you can’t even point to the previous nirvana and how to get back there and how much it will cost us?

    We are arguing with full blown loonies who’ll tell any porky to cover up thgeir gross stupidity.

  10. Luke says

    What an amazingly STUPID comment. Gee a problem is difficult so it doesn’t exist ! Brilliant logic.

    Who said it was nirvana already? You? Some denialist gimp.

    6B humans going to 9B adapted to some 20th century notion and pattern of normality – fresh water resources heavily committed – 30 days food supply

  13. Marc says

    Well said Luke. Furthermore, it is blatantly apparent that Jen selectively chooses articles and/or discusses reports that supports her opinions and that of her followers, or knows that such articles will generate objection and hostility by her masses. Objectivity, reason and open mindedness clearly has no place here!

  14. Malcolm Hill says

    Quite right Neville .. the IPCC is still being shown to be nothing more than a bunch of self serving cretins masquerading as scientists…and most of whom are being paid out of their countries public purses.

    You would have thought that railway engineer Pachauri… snort …snort… would have learnt something from the last round.

  15. spangled drongo says

    And Luke doesn’t proclaim the apocalypse?

    What a hypocrite!

    He doesn’t even gety the irony of the situation.

    Go back to sleep old chap, the sun will be up in the morning.

    I’m in the middle of an Albert’s Lyrebird survey and these interesting mocking birds that only live in small numbers in a small part of the world are maintaining their numbers in spite of the 6b going on 9b.

  16. Marc says

    Drongo, you base your argument on the success of a single species that everything is ok? Amazing. The introduced Indian myna is another sp. that is doing extremely well in Australia, may be everything is ok afterall!

  17. spangled drongo says

    This would naturally alarm say, Canadians more than Australians. In Aus we can still fool ourselves with the luxury of AGW and carbon taxes.

  18. spangled drongo says

    Marc,

    I think you’ve got the bull by the foot there.

    What I’m saying is that if native species with miniscule populations are surviving well amidst plague proportions of humans [and all other feral plagues], things can’t be as apocalyptic as some would claim.

    Species that have evolved and survived through situations we can only imagine are probably more resilient than we give them credit for.

    Not to say that they don’t need our constant attention and consideration but they haven’t had it to date and they are still there.

  19. Marc says

    Drongo, totally agree with that reasoning. However should not the focus be on providing the opportunity for an ecological community to evolve and adapt, rather than a focus on a single sp.? Is there not a responsibility on our part to protect and sustain as best we can what remains of the ‘natural’ environment to give the more vulnerable spp. and those that take longer to change and adapt that opportunity?

  20. el gordo says

    Gavin Schmidt said on hearing the news that we might see a return to Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so.

    ‘What you might see over a 20 to 30 year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming. In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn’t make much of a difference.’

    Of course the Denialati think that is bunkum.

  21. el gordo says

    ‘…but the puritanical disdain’ of Green /Left stoicism will continue.

    Looking ahead we will have to round up all the hard core zealots and send them to Nauru (in small batches) to be debriefed on climate change.

  22. spangled drongo says

    “Is there not a responsibility on our part to protect and sustain as best we can what remains of the ‘natural’ environment to give the more vulnerable spp. and those that take longer to change and adapt that opportunity?”

    Marc,

    You mean like buying out water allocations and closing down the MDB?

    But yes, “as best we can” are the crucial words on which the whole world teeters.

    The reality in today’s economy, the Nat Parks are a joke through lack of money, ability and inclination and our koala population, for example is disappearing fast and it will probably settle at a fraction of its former numbers yet I am finding that species numbers generally are holding up although being decimated in some cases.

    It’s more of a survival in spite of rather than because of, our “help”.

    And that is probably how it should be. “If you depend on us for your survival you’re already dead”.

    EG,

    Isn’t it amazing how the CAGWers cant bring themselves to admit anything but warming?

    How do you get a slow down in warming when there is no warming?

  23. el gordo says

    ‘How do you get a slow down in warming when there is no warming?’

    The zealots are praying hard, but it will do them no good because we have our sun god and they only have Gaia.

  25. spangled drongo says

    EG,

    You deserve A for effort with all those fevered lefties. I didn’t actually realise that Tony was the prime minister and Julia was in opposition.

  29. el gordo says

    ‘….thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.’

    Exciting times and it’s so sweet being on the right side of history.

  32. el gordo says

    Darwin’s early morning temps haven’t been this cool in 40 years and the east coast rains in NSW make this the wettest June in 40 years.

    Must have something to do with a cool IPO.

  34. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke
    I really don’t know what your point here is?

    having read the article, all I can see is neglect on a criminal scale by the authorities.
    so many derelict, outdated, ill maintained utilities that makes you think you were talking about Zimbabwe no the US

  35. Ian Thomson says

    Probably the most frightening thing that could happen to this” world ” is an ice age . It is looking a bit likely to happen, ( to those who can read) ,and I ,for one am a bit worried , that our Govts will be flat out shutting down the assets needed for our survival

  36. Asperamanka says

    Why not consult independent temperature records? Thousands and tens of thousands of farmers, fishermen, sailors etc, all over the world have kept weather records as a necessity, as a useful record or even just as a hobby. Why not provide a web-based clearing house where scanned copies of these records can be consulted and analysed to prove that there is no global warming.

    Saying you don’t like the measurements is all very well but providing a world-wide accumulation of independent measurements is unarguable.

    Is anyone doing this? It can’t be that hard. A correlation of temperature records with solar activity would be very interesting.

  37. el gordo says

    The US east coast heatwave is a ‘beat up’, to distract the population from talking about the build up of snow and ice in the western mountains.

    This is how it begins, region by region, then we find ourselves back in 1952.

    More a Wolf than a Maunder, but at this point it remains pure speculation. It may in fact turn out that after 30 years of cool/wet climate the planet regains a warm glow for a few more decades, until we eventually reach a tipping point.

  38. Luke says

    Asperamanka – there has been two sceptic reconstructions in recent months – the temperature trend stands…. Watts et al and Muller et al. Sigh !

    Or El Gordo – maybe we’re just in the apres ski of La Nina debris. So much speculation – you guys are getting more rabid every day. Settle ….

  40. el gordo says

    Easterbrook looks at temperature changes to 2040 and suggests three possible scenarios.

    Cooling similar to the 1945-1977 cooling, cooling similar to the 1880-1915 cooling, and cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820). Cooling similar to the Maunder Minimum would be an extension of the Dalton.

    Full story at Watts.

  41. Robert says

    Interesting insight into the puritan mind from some of the postings here. Skeptics tend to be instinctive believers in cycles, and their defenses go up against extrapolation and modelling that ignore or minimalise the cyclic nature of things. Cycles don’t explain all, they’re just a better bet. Non-cyclical factors are worth examination, needless to say.

    Yet the mere discussion of a future cooling cycle is perceived as hysteria and irrational speculation by our Green Betters.

    Remember Marian Wilkinson’s extraordinary front page evacuation plan for the NSW coastline in the Sydney Morning Herald? She got into trouble over that…but ONLY for not describing potential disasters to harbour and river front properties! Our first case of tidalist discrimination.

    No absurdity and no waste is beyond these people. Yet they would describe our mere discussion here as extreme.

  44. el gordo says

    As Robert points out, sceptics naturally gravitate towards cycle theory because it’s far removed from linear AGW.

    Mack…. the Denialati are more radical than their sceptic cousins and ‘tipping points’, along with the collision of cycles, is more in line with our thinking. Although, I hasten to add, this is just a personal viewpoint.

  46. Luke says

    You’ve had to gullible to love this stuff of Mal’s

    “Which hospital wings do they think should be shut down first? The operating theatres? The burn units? Or the neonatal intensive care units full of premature babies?” cue violins ….

    How about geriatric sceptics wing?

    Now how many people around the world die from evil coal mining. Its no wonder people are increasingly cynical and distrustful of astroturf institutions and their funding programs

    “sceptics naturally gravitate towards cycle theory because it’s far removed from linear AGW.” or maybe they’re just stupid

  47. el gordo says

    From my reading all the models have shortcomings in their simulations of the stratosphere, which limits the accuracy of predictions on where the climate is heading.

    BoMs super computer could run all the known cycles at once and look for break points, throw in ENSO and the NAO for seasoning.

  48. Luke says

    El Gordo – well don’t think BoM haven’t looked at cycles. But the problem is that you have so much overlapping quasi-periodic going on (ENSO, IOD, IPO, SAM etc etc) – that it looks like cycles are apparent when there isn’t any really. And if you throw a vast number of variables together and do a big statistical tune – you can get a fit on any data but it will fall over as soon as you start to predict i.e. all you’ve done is tune on noise. Stats voodoo. So before you do the maths you need a good physical mechanism.

  49. Malcolm Hill says

    The article is about the the IPCC, Greenpeace and Trade unions shoveling money around to hide the source,together with blatant conflicts of interests that under normal circumstances woud land the perpetrators in jail.

    But the obvious would not be to your liking would it? … we must defend the shonky behaviour of the IPCC and its mates inthe grey domain (non PR sources ) to the death musnt we.

    Because of the misuse of the funds involved someone has to suffer, but what they should not do is shut down the psychiatric wings for the terminally delusional and extremist GW exaggerators.

    They couldnt lie straight in bed .

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html

  50. el gordo says

    So that leaves us pretty much in the dark, except that we now know the NAO and ENSO are directly linked to the sun’s behavior. Surely this is worth inputting on its own merits?

    Unravelling cycles within cycles, positive and negative feedbacks with associated weather drama, should not be too difficult for BoMs big brain.

    By the way, I was very impressed by their forecast of an east coast low well in advance – Plan B in action. Three cheers for BoM!

  51. Robert says

    EG, do you think we might need to be cautious about promoting skeptical notions as providing more material for “inputting”? These people will try to quantify and model anything, using anything. The hopeless inadequacy of knowledge and method won’t stop ’em, because it’s what they do, and it’s all they want to do. Many of these people are stupendously intelligent, but with no ability to think.

    Though it’s been fudged and partially expunged by recent and very creative “studies”, the cooling scare of the seventies was very real. The reaction of many suddenly important boffins was not measured consideration. Everyone likes attention and everyone wants to get laid.

    Do we want the same nutters who brought us CAGW confecting models of our “next Maunder”, or the “coming Dalton”. Imagine them at a Saint-Tropez Global Glaciation conference, demanding billions for the DNA revival of the wooly mammoth to meet future food needs.

  52. el gordo says

    ‘These people will try to quantify and model anything, using anything.’

    I agree, but we must be careful not to downplay the whole concept just because most of the programers are deluded.

    Over the years they have been tweeking the models to conform to AGW standards, but released from this burden the same scientists will remarkably see the light.

    A Renaissance in climate science will follow.

  53. Louis Hissink says

    I suppose it has not occurred to anyone that a variable nucelar fission/fusion process is, by definition, not possible. Hence the solar variability which most seem to rabbit on about is physically impossible – nuclear reactors don’t suddenly surge in producing radioactivity by themselves, so nor can the solar engine that is supposed to be powered a, hither to demonstrated continuous nuclear fusion reaction.

    The basic physics behind the standard solar model is wrong.

  54. Mack says

    Louis,
    The sun is not just a nuclear process factory in the sky. It’s part of nature and as such is never constant and very much cyclical. It may even be that the suns behavior in its variation of heat output may be akin to the burning of a natural flame.
    Luke and his mates cherish the thought that if the sun would only remain constant then we could all concentrate on whats going on down here and how us reckless humans are destroying the climate. 🙂

  56. kuhnkat says

    Louis,

    I don’t think I have ever heard of a theory for how the sun actually functions. People like Leif Svalgaard mostly make observations and try to match past and current patterns similar to how meterologists work. Not that it isn’t useful work, but, there is really no understanding of the mechanisms of the sun, the connections between the plasma, the alledged nuclear furnace, and the magnetic fields, just the arm waving about a hydrogen gas ball brought to fusion by pressure. “Unfortunately that is another quite shakey theory!!”

    He gave me a link to a paper on reconnection that also mentioned “frozen in magnetic fields”. It appears to be on the level of climate science with a lot of bald statements and numerous observations with no real connection with physical processes. I think I am beginning to see why Climate Science was able to get so far off the beaten track. Most areas of science appear to have similar problems, they just haven’t been captured by VISIONARIES yet!!

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf

  57. Louis Hissink says

    Cohenite, no have not had a chance to catch up all the news and posts etc – drilling went ok, on schedule, and I notice the market has tanked, but blame the Europeans and the US Fed and Obama – their Ponzi scheme is close to collapse. Usual friends? They, (if I get your drift), are not a problem for me – my ordnance is a tad bigger than theirs.

    Mack – Indeed nature is variable and to any casual observer, the fossil record is by no means able to indicate what future species might come about – we are that ignorant, in a scientific sense.

    kuhnkat: the solar standard model appears to be a hotch-potch of ad hoc adjustments to the belief that has a fusion powered core.

    Frozen magnetic fields was initially proposed by Hannes Alfven (magnetohydrodynamics) but after much experimental work Alfven realised that while the the theory pedagologically useful, it was supported in scientific empiricism and used his Nobel Prize acceptance speech to announce that his frozen magnetic field idea was basically wrong. His peers ignored him, and still do.

    Now they are on about magnetic tubes connected to the solar poles, in addition to the edquatorial bands of sunspots – and what is a magnetic tube? Well, a lab experiment using a copper wire passing an electric current down it creates a magnetic tube around the wire. Heence if that magnetic field is observed elsewhere, (magnetic tube morphology) then it must be produced by an electric current. Except there are no copper wires coming out of the solar polar regions, so our astrophysicists are lost for words and ideas, not knowing the basic physics of plasma. Hence they don’t realise that those magnetic tubes are the physical expressions of Birkeland currents in the solar system plasma leaving the sun in “DARK CURRENT” mode. And the magnitude of that energy source would conceivably dwarf that produced by solar radiation as an energy input into the earth.

    As for the core of the sun – no one really knows, nor will know since we can’t do in situ measurements , for obvious reasons. Some astrophyscists have proposed a neutron star but matter comprised of 100% neutrons is not known to exist since neutrons are extremely unstable, decaying into protons and electrons over 10 minutes, so that hypothesis has to fail. Another view is that the solar core is comprised of iron – maybe. But in the plasma model a star is considered to be a cosmic sized plasma Z-Pinch, and if so, then its variability is a little more easily explained using plasma physics and electrodynamics etc. And Iron core would then be a reasonable postulate but if you ignore the plasma side of things, could be problematical.

    I’ll stick my neck on this and suggest that the earth’s thermal state, and climate, is its reaction to changes in the solar plasma system it’s immersed in. In other words, climate change is the earth’s reaction to the magnitude larger forces affecting the earth itself.

    Luke and his climate changers are better described as climate geocentrists, believing that the sun rotates around their earth.

  58. Louis Hissink says

    Error in comment to kuhnkat – Alfven realised his frozen magnetic fields idea was basically wrong based on empiricism, etc – typo in my original.

  59. Louis Hissink says

    Cohenite,

    Ah, yes I have read David’s post on this – but the error everyone makes is assuming that solar radiation is the ONLY source of energy reacing the earth. If this assumption is made, then sure, it’s not enough to explain the observed variation. However if the earth is also connected electrically to the sun via the various magnetic ropes and magnetic flux tubes, then the solar radiation variation can be likened as a speedometer or temperature gauge, and acting as a proxy for the “invisible” energy leaving the sun and the earth.

    The earth also receives energy from the electric currents comprising the solar system homopolar, or Faraday, motor in addition, so the total sum of energy reaching the earth system is solar radiation, the energy coming via the magnetic tubes, and the energy coming into the equatorial regions that are derived from the electrical driving force which powers the solar system homopolar motor.

    (And pre-empting Luke, it’s published in the peer review literature under the auspices of the IEEE).

  63. spangled drongo says

    “so the total sum of energy reaching the earth system is solar radiation,”

    Louis, what about gravity?

    Sounds feasible:

    John Dodds
    Retired Engineer

    logged in via email @sbcglobal.net
    .4 days ago •
    .What if your “scientific ” arguments are wrong?
    For example- the analysis by Arrhenius (1896) and Hansen/NASA-GISS & CRU all assume that energy from the sun is the SOLE source of warming energy. Why do they not consider energy from GRAVITY? Doesn’t the moon contribute energy by causing tides and tidal energy?- see the paper “Gravity causes climate change” at http://www.scribd.com for more details and an alternate scientific explanation.
    Example 2: Arrhenius basically said “More GHGs means more warming” as adopted by IPCC. hence the mantra that adding more CO2 (which man does) causes more warming by the greenhouse effect (which IS real- and also happens underground where the methane already undergoes the GHE). BUT where does the energy come from? CO2 can NOT create warming energy. (it is against the laws of physics!) It has to come from the energy photon that is absorbed by the CO2. What happens IF there is an excess of GHGs so that not all the GHGs CAN absorbs a photon.and the GHE is actually limited by the continuous amount of energy coming into the Earth? OR if the addition of more GHGs does cause more warming then WHY hasn’t the ocean xaporized by the greenhouse effect? Why do we continuously have more water and CO2 in the ocean that does not vaporize?
    If you find that energy is the limiting factor and not CO2 or GHGs, then the whole argument collapses. CO2 does not cause warming because it is already in excess of he available photons. You can NOT control the energy of gravity. You do not get “feedback” because there is no extra energy to make the GHE happen when more water vapor is added.by the addition of more CO2. In which case the computer programs are wrong. which makes the economic analyses which depend on the increasing warming wrong. Which makes all the follow-on academic research wrong because it depends on the false premise that more GHGs means more warming.
    I would appreciate a scientific answer, or else you have just created another Blog that will be classified as “true believers”, who have an idealogical goal that is to be accomplished by lying about the science.
    .

  65. spangled drongo says

    Thanks Luke.

    I was looking at investing in privately developed tide powered generators over 50 years ago.