The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???

bb1234567 · 15-06-2011 10:57pm

are you being sarcastic?:o

16-06-2011 8:57pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13792479

Solar predictions bring heat and light

Over the last few years, the politics of climate change have been amply forged in the fires of a changeable Sun.
And the story is here again, in the form of research unveiled this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
The solar science, described graphically in a Discover Magazine post - "an east/west river of gas" which "flows under the surface of the Sun" that can't be seen directly but which is inferred from "sound waves that travel from it to the surface" - is fascinating.
And what it suggests is that the Sun appears set to quieten further over the next solar cycle than it already has - with lower sunspot activity, and perhaps marginally lower energy output.
But as to the implications on Earth - well, for anyone who's followed this story for a while, they're very familiar, and the telling of them is laced with equally familiar political overtones.
The big question is this: if the predictions of an impending reduction in solar activity turn into reality, what would that mean for the global climate?
And that's why it becomes a political football - because if the answer is that it counteracts global warming, still more if it leads to global cooling, then moves away from fossil fuel use are at best unnecessary and at worst harmful.
The comparator here is the Maunder Minimum - a period of low solar activity running in the late 1600s and early 1700s - a "grand solar minimum" - which co-incided with a period of colder than usual temperatures - at least, in parts of Europe.
So you can probably name a few organisations likely to pounce on this latest work as evidence that another cool period is coming, and that society's logical response is to drill, baby, drill and burn, baby, burn like never before.
The Register doesn't disappoint, suggesting the solar cycle predictions will become "the science story of the century" and mean that the Earth is "heading into a mini Ice Age" - while the Daily Telegraph's James Delingpole treats it as fact - "It's official: a new Ice Age is on its way".

Duiske · 17-06-2011 12:51am

John Coleman (ex-owner of the weather channel) talks about the reports in recent days from NASA and NOAA, which seem to suggest that ol' Sol "could" be headed for a Maunder like minimum again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwQqkD3lGdk

HellFireClub · 17-06-2011 10:29am

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cold-winters-set-to-continue-for-50-years-509342.html

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

17-06-2011 9:06pm

Where is the jetsteam in the southern hemisphere and northern over Russia to the US in relation to more recent averages?

Is it further south across the northern hemisphere and further north across the southern?
This would link a weaker solar output to a weakening of the low pressures in the ITCZ which pushes the jet stream north and south with the monsoons

We need charts!!!!!!!!

19-06-2011 6:46pm

We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149.abstract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years

19-06-2011 8:18pm

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.

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.”

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.

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.

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~deforest/SPD-sunspot-release/SPD_solar_cycle_release.txt

so cold winters & cool damp summers for a few decades so

red menace · 21-06-2011 3:32pm

Reading this guy's take on it not much likely to happen

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

Redsunset · 02-07-2011 2:45am

We see clearly that the northern hemisphere of the Sun is near the reversal of the poles. The Pole Shift occurs only during a solar maximum.

Very interesting indeed.

02-07-2011 4:33am

Even more interesting is the fact that the south pole is not (yet) reversing.

Has the pole shifted to the equater?

02-07-2011 10:26am

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46387

recent studies have suggested that solar-induced changes to the jet stream in the northern hemisphere may cause colder winters in Europe but this would be offset by milder winters in Greenland.

02-07-2011 10:29am

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?

by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt

Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany

Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.

interesting that he says this about solar flares like the recent huge one

Energetic solar eruptions do not accumulate around the sunspot maximum. In most cycles they shun the maximum phase and can even occur close to a sunspot minimum

Predictions based on cycles in the sun's motion turned out to be correct. My long-range forecasts of precisely defined classes of energetic X-ray flares and strong geomagnetic storms, covering the period 1979 – 1985, reached an overall hit rate of 90 percent though such events show a very irregular distribution. These forecasts were checked by the Space Environment Center, Boulder, and the astronomers Gleissberg, Wöhl and Pfleiderer (Landscheidt, 1986; Landscheidt and Wöhl, 1986). Accumulations of strong geomagnetic storms around 1982 and 1990 were also correctly forecast several years before the events. I predicted, too, in 1984 (Landscheidt, 1986, 1987) that the sun's activity would diminish past 1990. Just this happened. Though a panel of experts (Joselyn, 1997) had predicted in 1996 and even two years later that sunspot cycle 23 would have a large amplitude similar to the preceding cycles (highest smoothed monthly sunspot number R = 160), the observed activity was much weaker (R = 120).

My climate forecasts based on solar motion cycles stood the test as well. I correctly forecast the end of the Sahelian drought three years before the event, the last four extrema in global temperature anomalies, the maximum in the Palmer drought index for U.S.A. around 1999, extreme river Po discharges around the beginning of 2001, and the last three El Niños as well as the course of the last La Niña (Landscheidt, 1983-2002). This forecast skill, solely based on cycles of solar activity, is irreconcilable with the IPCC's allegation that it is unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century.

An even more difficult question is whether future Gleissberg minima will be of the regular type with moderately reduced solar activity as around 1895, of the type of very weak activity like the Dalton minimum around 1810, or of the grand minimum type with nearly extinguished activity like the nadir of the Maunder minimum around 1670, the Spoerer minimum around 1490, the Wolf minimum around 1320, and the Norman minimum around 1010 (Stuiver and Quay, 1981). Fig. 11 offers a heuristic solution. It shows the time series of unsmoothed dT/dt-extrema for the interval 1000 – 2250. A consistent regularity attracts attention. Each time when the amplitude of a negative extremum goes below a low threshold, indicated by a dashed horizontal line, this coincides with a period of exceptionally weak solar activity.

Without exception, the outstanding negative extrema coincide with periods of exceptionally weak solar activity and vice versa. So there are good reasons to expect that the coming Gleissberg minimum around 2030 will be a deep one. As there are three consecutive extrema below the quantitative threshold, there is a high probability that the event will be of the Maunder minimum type.

I do not expect that the effects of man-made greenhouse gases will eliminate the sun's predominance. If these effects were as strong as the IPCC pretends, my diverse climate forecasts, exclusively based on solar activity, would not have had any chance to turn out correct. This all the more so as they cover recent years and decades the warming of which, according to IPCC statements, cannot be explained by natural forcing.

Redsunset · 02-07-2011 7:24pm

Some great info.

http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun%27s%20Polar%20Fields.pdf

Fiskar · 03-07-2011 2:37pm

Interesting article on colder winters ahead by Professor Lockwood

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html

quote: His findings, published by the Institute of Physics, (IoP) showed that in the next 50 years there is a one in 10 chance of the sun returning to conditions seen between 1645 and 1715 when the River Thames in London regularly froze over, as did the Baltic Sea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html#ixzz1R368APpq

03-07-2011 2:54pm

Fiskar wrote: »

Interesting article on colder winters ahead by Professor Lockwood

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html

quote: His findings, published by the Institute of Physics, (IoP) showed that in the next 50 years there is a one in 10 chance of the sun returning to conditions seen between 1645 and 1715 when the River Thames in London regularly froze over, as did the Baltic Sea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html#ixzz1R368APpq

This begs the critical question!
If the sun does go into a Maunder minimum mode, given all the "AGW" that has supposed to have happened over the past century, will we still get a mini ice age?
If the CO2 induced warming affect is as strong as some scientists claim then the reduced solar activity won't have any affect.

I think it will just slow down the weather systems, meaning that the cool air will stay more polar and the warm air will stay more in the tropics with less interaction between them.
Based on the recent heatwaves and extreme cold events that have been happening.

Min · 03-07-2011 6:20pm

The link posted by BlindJustice deals with this, if CO2 was the driving force then the Earth's temperature should be rising at a steady rate, however the data shows that the Earth's temperature fluctuates in line with the activity of sun, which puts major question marks over the IPCC and the real impact of rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

2030 expected to be the peak of the cool period, it mentioned an 83 year cycle which is interesting given 83 years previous to 2030 was 1947.

Maunder mode is increasingly talked about, this goes back to my childhood in the 1980's when the talk was about the coming ice age, then global warming fanatics took over, now it seems the scientists who stood on the side of cooling will be proved right and it is the sun not humans which is the driving force.

04-07-2011 10:53pm

Min wrote: »

The link posted by BlindJustice deals with this, if CO2 was the driving force then the Earth's temperature should be rising at a steady rate, however the data shows that the Earth's temperature fluctuates in line with the activity of sun, which puts major question marks over the IPCC and the real impact of rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes I agree, but the point being that AGW supporters are still adamant that the affects of CO2 override the affects caused by a change in the sun.
They seem to believe that the greenhouse gases will continue to warm the Earth, despite the reduced solar energy reaching the surface because of increased clouds caused by cosmic rays.

Redsunset · 04-07-2011 11:51pm

Not CO2 but Water Vapour being the main Greenhouse gas.

Im just waiting to see does this low solar activity in fact cause enough or any change in world or regional climate for whatever period of time.
And try to see if more than one parameter is at play of which i suspect there is.
There is so much to learn and at the moment alot is just guess work,trial and error,thats science for ya.:)

Really at the end of the day whether it be global warming or cooling in the headlines,the sky will always be falling.

Im not getting into a debate bout this but i thought this link very interesting.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html#anchor247575

PARAGRAPHS FROM LINK

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.

His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases

Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

04-07-2011 11:51pm

just so ye know the guy whose work i posted is dead & long before his prediction on this potential minimum, so he certainly isnt jumping on any bandwagon!!! Some of his work predates the 1990s and some from the 1970s which i think lends him weight that he was so consistent despite the turn of many toward warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt

05-07-2011 3:12pm

Fiskar wrote: »

Interesting article on colder winters ahead by Professor Lockwood

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html

quote: His findings, published by the Institute of Physics, (IoP) showed that in the next 50 years there is a one in 10 chance of the sun returning to conditions seen between 1645 and 1715 when the River Thames in London regularly froze over, as did the Baltic Sea.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html#ixzz1R368APpq

Full article now available online http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034004/fulltext#erl380665s4

06-07-2011 6:07am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/nils-axel-morner-arctic-environment-by-the-middle-of-this-century/#more-42810

Nils-Axel Mörner, best known for his research on sea level and sea level records, reported in the April 2011 issue of the journal Energy & Environment that:
At around 2040-2050 we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe. The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe and the Arctic.
At the time I thought this was a bit of a reach, and still do, but it fits in well Continue reading →

Looks a bit extreme but it fits in with my way of thinking, cooler at the poles and warmer near the tropics.

nilhg · 06-07-2011 8:49am

New research says that reduced solar activity could lead to one winter in seven could be "harsh"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14029995

10-07-2011 5:29am

- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/35145bee-9d38-11e0-997d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1Rfo4qoXu

Third, scientists at the Met Office and elsewhere are beginning to understand the effect of the 11-year solar cycle on climate. When sunspots and other solar activity are at a minimum, the effect is similar to that of El Niño: more easterly winds and cold winter weather for Britain.
“We now believe that [the solar cycle] accounts for 50 per cent of the variability from year to year,” says Scaife. With solar physicists predicting a long-term reduction in the intensity of the solar cycle – and possibly its complete disappearance for a few decades, as happened during the so-called Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 – this could be an ominous signal for icy winters ahead, despite global warming.

UK met office are now taking variations in solar activity more seriously.

10-07-2011 12:13pm

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/08/east.africa.drought/

East Africa is in the midst of its worst drought in more than 60 years, with as many as 10 million people at risk.

The monsoon is completely driven the sun meaning that in times of lower solar activity the Inter tropical convergence zone will not spread monsoonal rainfall as wide. This is the kind of evidence I`ve been looking for all along in this thread to show that this is not just affecting the North West of Europe and show that it is global - giving more weight to the theory that the Negative NAO is linked to a decrease in Solar activity

10-07-2011 7:40pm

There is also some anecdotal evidense that parts of Australia are now experiencing colder than average winter weather. (no links just hearsay)

I think it's down to weakening solar energy reducing the strenght of the global wind patterns, i.e. the cold air stays near the poles and the warm air stays near the equater & monsoon clouds have a narrower band (as blindjustice says).

Our mild weather is mainly the result of an active solar cycle.

BEASTERLY · 10-07-2011 8:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/08/east.africa.drought/

The monsoon is completely driven the sun meaning that in times of lower solar activity the Inter tropical convergence zone will not spread monsoonal rainfall as wide. This is the kind of evidence I`ve been looking for all along in this thread to show that this is not just affecting the North West of Europe and show that it is global - giving more weight to the theory that the Negative NAO is linked to a decrease in Solar activity

I have to say I disagree. The connection between sunspots is far more more complicated than it's output. It's the slowdown of the solar wind resulting from a lack of sunspots which causes changes in the atmosphere.

The monsoon is driven by solar heat radiation, something which actually increases ever so slightly during periods of low solar activity which would aid monsoon rains.

During low solar activity the sun is not cooler or less powerful. Is it merely a drop in magnetic output which has an effect on our atmosphere. This is why I think it has little effect on global temperature, it merely changes climatic patterns.

nacho libre · 10-07-2011 8:16pm

while recent low solar activity may have a more widespread effect on the earth's climate than previously thought, it doesn't seem to have stopped the global temperature rising so far, as the global temperature in 2010, and early part of 2011, was on the rise.
so those advancing low magnetic activity from the sun as possible evidence that global warming is on decline seem to be mistaken

10-07-2011 8:45pm

BEASTERLY wrote: »

I have to say I disagree. The connection between sunspots is far more more complicated than it's output. It's the slowdown of the solar wind resulting from a lack of sunspots which causes changes in the atmosphere.

The monsoon is driven by solar heat radiation, something which actually increases ever so slightly during periods of low solar activity which would aid monsoon rains.

During low solar activity the sun is not cooler or less powerful. Is it merely a drop in magnetic output which has an effect on our atmosphere. This is why I think it has little effect on global temperature, it merely changes climatic patterns.

interesting, can you link me to some reading on this?

Solar irradiance is linked to magnetic flux if your saying heat output increases during a drop in magnetic ouput then how come NASA says its decreasing?

There are two important findings from SORCE. First, the high accurate TIM (Total Irradiance Monitor) on SORCE reveals a much lower TSI of ~1361 W/m2 as compared to ~1366 W/m2

http://atmospheres.gsfc.nasa.gov/climate/index.php?section=136

Is there anywhere that keeps track of the seasonal extents of the monsoon/ICTZ the same way temperatures are kept track of?

dermiek · 10-07-2011 9:17pm

So basically sometime in the next 50 years or so, it will get so cold that our cahunas will freeze and fall off.

Ooooh.

Redsunset · 29-07-2011 11:57pm

CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet

- Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.

Cosmic rays and solar winds are interesting phenomena—but they are vastly more relevant when an undocumented theory is threatening to quadruple society’s energy costs. The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and “soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too tiny to measure with most thermometers.

In 2007, when Fred Singer and I published Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, we weren’t terribly concerned with cosmic rays. We knew the natural, moderate warming/cooling cycle was real, from the evidence in ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. The cycle was the big factor that belied the man-made warming hysteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

When Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger discovered the 1,500 year cycle in the Greenland ice cores in 1984, they knew immediately that it was solar-powered. They’d seen exactly the same cycle in the carbon 14 molecules in trees, and in the beryllium 10 molecules in ice cores. Both sets of molecules are formed when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere. The cycle had produced a whole series of dramatic, abrupt Medieval-Warming-to-Little-Ice-Age climate changes.

The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small. IPCC did not, however, add up the other solar variations that could amplify the solar irradiation. Nor had the IPCC programmed its famed computer models with the knowledge of the Medieval Warming (950–1200 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC–600 AD), or the big Holocene Warmings centered on 6,000 and 8,000 BC.

The IPCC apparently wanted to dismiss the sun as a climate factor—to leave room for a CO2 factor that has only a 22 percent correlation with our past thermometer record. Correlation is not causation—but the lack of CO2 correlation is deadly to the IPCC theory.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute added the next chapter in the climate cycle story, just before our book was published. His cloud chamber experiment showed natural cosmic rays quickly created vast numbers of tiny “cloud seeds” when our mix of atmospheric gases was bombarded with ultra-violet light. Since clouds often cover 30 percent of the earth’s surface, a moderate change in cloud cover clearly could explain the warming/cooling cycle.

Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.

Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.

The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.

Stay tuned.

Redsunset · 30-07-2011 12:26am

This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the last de Vries cycle event – the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 ramp up in terms of sunspot number is tracking much the same as that of Solar Cycle 5 but about a year ahead of it. All solar activity indications are for a Dalton Minimum repeat. There has been no development that precludes that outcome.

David Archibald.

archibald_july2011_solar_fig3.png?w=640&h=402

archibald_july2011_solar_fig3.png?w=640&h=402

derekon · 30-07-2011 1:00am

redsunset wrote: »

This chart compares the development of Solar Cycle 24 with the last de Vries cycle event – the Dalton Minimum. The Solar Cycle 24 ramp up in terms of sunspot number is tracking much the same as that of Solar Cycle 5 but about a year ahead of it. All solar activity indications are for a Dalton Minimum repeat. There has been no development that precludes that outcome.

David Archibald.

Thanks for the info Redsunset - in layman terms, does this point to the coming winter in Ireland as another arctic one?

morticia2 · 30-07-2011 7:22am

redsunset wrote: »

The IPCC wants $10 gasoline, and “soaring” electric bills to reduce earth’s temperatures by an amount too tiny to measure with most thermometers.
Stay tuned.

I'm afraid we're going to get the expensive gasoline even if global warming theory vapourises overnight (or over a number of chilly winters). The problem is that we've used most of the cheap and easily accessible light sweet crudes, leaving oil sands, shales and deep water sources that are much harder (and more expensive) to get at . The IEA belatedly announced peak oil in 2006. Meanwhile, thanks to globalisation and a soaring population, the costs of all commodities is likely to soar.

I have long been convinced (regardless of its accuracy or otherwise) that governments have been using global warming as an alternative way of trying to ration fossil fuels...."they're running out" is too scary and might frighten "the markets"

After all, they're not making any more of them.....

Anyway, part of the reason we in Ireland are paying more for fuel would be the banking system, and not any mad adherence to climate orthodoxy.

up for anything · 30-07-2011 8:10am

With rising fuel prices and a 22% increase in gas bills coming up, I wonder how long it'll be before the people of the West of Ireland start tapping that Shell pipeline a bit like they do to the oil pipelines in Nigeria. If I lived a bit closer I'd be tempted to try.

Kippure · 01-08-2011 6:39pm

Nice little chart .

odyboody · 02-08-2011 1:13pm

Got to love that 2nd guys name:D

Elmer Blooker · 03-08-2011 10:35am

The sun doesn't look too dead at the moment, it appears to be getting quite active. Sunspot 1263 is described as a "whopper'
www.spaceweather.com

digme · 03-08-2011 11:13am

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The sun doesn't look too dead at the moment, it appears to be getting quite active. Sunspot 1263 is described as a "whopper'
www.spaceweather.com

nonsense. 1 sun spot, how sensationalist.........

thetonynator · 03-08-2011 7:18pm

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The sun doesn't look too dead at the moment, it appears to be getting quite active. Sunspot 1263 is described as a "whopper'
www.spaceweather.com

Yep, but this is supposed to be approaching the peak of the solar cycle, and activity is way below where it would normally be.

4gun · 03-08-2011 11:55pm

as much as I love snow and frosty winters myself..unfortunately we don't see enough of them where I'm from,
I can't help but wonder why so many here are looking forward to them ...given Our countrys inability to cope and the major havoc they cause

not being a spoil sport , I'm just curious

09-08-2011 1:15pm

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australias-warmest-end-to-july-in-decades-20110801-1i7be.html

Much of central and southern Australia has had its warmest end to July in decades, with the last few days of the month 3 to 8 degrees above average.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/australias-warmest-end-to-july-in-decades-20110801-1i7be.html#ixzz1UX7odw00

Redsunset · 13-08-2011 1:16pm

Todays sun image.

And a look at how the sun really does seem to influence the weather.

Full paper,,
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warming_Due_To_Ultraviolet_Effects_Through_Ozone_Chemistry.pdf

Im still waiting on the CERN results,so if anyone come across it before i do,please do post them up.

For those who don't know what i mean here's a link to what there up to.

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate/Experiments_SC/CLOUD.aspx

And finally an excellent vid,Get talking bout solar influence 15 min in but is all interesting.

And Prof Shaviv,

15-08-2011 5:36am

Sunspot number: 0
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 13 Aug 2011

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 1 day
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Since 2004: 821 days
Typical Solar Min: 486 days
Updated 13 Aug 2011

http://www.spaceweather.com/

We are supposed to be near a solar maximum now.

Sponge Bob · 16-08-2011 7:43pm

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html

16:51 06/02/2006 ST. PETERSBURG, February 6 (RIA Novosti) -

Low solar activity could trigger a global freeze in the middle of the 21st century, a Russian astronomer said Monday.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory said temperatures would begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reached its peak, and that the coldest period would occur 15-20 years after a major solar output decline in 2035-2045.
Abdusamatov said dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures were an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, and resulted from variations in the Sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

snowstreams · 16-08-2011 7:56pm

It looks quite likely that this guy was correct in the first part of his prediction in how cooling was supposed to start in about 6-7 years from 2006. However it seems to have started even quicker, after about 4 years.

Sponge Bob · 16-08-2011 8:14pm

He went down like a sh1te in a spacesuit when he made his initial pronouncements around 2006/7

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

But Abdussamatov was not fazed. If Abdussamatov is corrrect we should observe a large scale and very rapid growth in the Martian Ice Caps over the next few years as well as constantly increasing summer polar ice cap minima.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

Redsunset · 09-09-2011 1:01am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

Wonderful Henrik Svensmark's documentary vid on climate change and cosmic rays

First CERN cloud results are out.But here is some info on what they did

Sulphuric Acid

Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) is thought to be the main chemical trace gas responsible for nucleation in the atmosphere. Formation of pure water aerosol particles or droplets is kinetically hindered by an energy barrier due to the surface tension of water. Sulphuric acid has a low vapour pressure which means it condenses easily (boiling point is 337° C) and can act as a precursor gas for aerosols. In liquid phase it can be mixed in any fraction with water. A single sulphuric acid molecule in gas phase can already bind up to two water molecules by hydrogen bonds. These sulphuric acid/water cluster collide and form larger clusters which eventually grow spontaneously by further condensation.

Sulphuric acid can easily be charged by removing one proton (H+). This leads to an HSO4- ion that can form stable clusters together with a few neutral sulphuric acid and water molecules. Furthermore this leads to a higher collision rate with further uptake of sulphuric acid and water molecules.

In the CLOUD chamber sulphuric acid is produced by oxidation of SO2 with OH radicals, which are produced by reaction of water with singlet oxygen (O(1D)) that is produced by photolysis of ozone (O3).
Recent atmospheric measurements and theories suggest that other species may play an important role in nucleation as well. The influence of these species on nucleation and possible mechanisms are subject of further experiments.

Ion-Induced Nucleation

Nucleation is the formation of aerosol particles from precursor vapours like sulphuric acid. The process depends on both thermodynamic and kinetic properties of the system. Gas particles form clusters through kinetic collisions, which will often evaporate because a single-particle state is more energetically favourable than a multi-particle cluster.

When clusters of particles reach a certain critical size, there is an energy cost rather than an energy gain associated with evaporation. The inclusion of an ion within the cluster can reduce the size of this critical cluster significantly, making new particle formation much more stable.

Because atmospheric ion concentrations are largely determined by the intensity of galactic cosmic rays, ion-induced nucleation is a mechanism which could explain the observed cosmic ray-climate correlation. This is especially true in a clean, pre-industrial atmosphere, where nucleation would contribute a much large proportion of atmospheric aerosol.

Aerosol-Climate Effects

Aerosol Direct Effect

Aerosol affect the Earth's climate directly, by absorbing the sun's light or reflecting it back into space. Dark aerosol like black carbon or dust will absorb light and have a warming effect, while light-coloured aerosol like sea spray or sulphate reflect light and cool the planet.

Aerosol Indirect Effect

Large aerosols (> 100 nm) can act as seeds on which cloud droplets form. Liquid water clouds have a strong cooling effect on the Earth's climate. When more aerosol are present in a cloud with a given amount of water, more cloud droplets will form. These droplets will be smaller. The result is an increase in the cloud's albedo; polluted clouds reflect more light into space, and cool the climate more effectively.

The cloud will also have a longer lifetime, because smaller droplets are less likely to rain out. The aerosol indirect effect is larger than the direct effect, and more difficult to quantify.

Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3. Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 100–1,000-fold.

Time-resolved molecular measurements reveal that nucleation proceeds by a base-stabilization mechanism involving the stepwise accretion of ammonia molecules. Ions increase the nucleation rate by an additional factor of between two and more than ten at ground-level galactic-cosmic-ray intensities, provided that the nucleation rate lies below the limiting ion-pair production rate.

We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

Video talking bout results,
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/climate-change-culpability/1144692117001

CERN Finds “Significant” Cosmic Ray Cloud Effect reactions

Best known for its studies of the fundamental constituents of matter, the CERN particle-physics laboratory in Geneva is now also being used to study the climate. Researchers in the CLOUD collaboration have released the first results from their experiment designed to mimic conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere. By firing beams of particles from the lab’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a gas-filled chamber, they have discovered that cosmic rays could have a role to play in climate by enhancing the production of potentially cloud-seeding aerosols. –Physics World, 24 August 2011

If Henrik Svensmark is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal.–Terry Sloan, BBC News 3 April 2008

Henrik Svensmark welcomes the new results, claiming that they confirm research carried out by his own group, including a study published earlier this year showing how an electron beam enhanced production of clusters inside a cloud chamber. He acknowledges that the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation will not be proved until aerosols that are large enough to act as condensation surfaces are studied in the lab, but believes that his group has already found strong evidence for the link in the form of significant negative correlations between cloud cover and solar storms. Physics World, 24 August 2011

CERN’s CLOUD experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don’t understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a “significant” one according to CERN. –David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 25 August 2011

I have asked the CERN colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. –Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, Welt Online 15 July 2011

Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth – in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia – always knew that Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases. In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk – and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise. –-Nigel Calder, 24 August 2011

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature. Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice. –Lawrence Solomon, National Post, 23 Feb 2007

derekon · 09-09-2011 3:19pm

Hi Redsunset, it would appear that you are the expert on solar weather so I have a question for you, if you don't mind.

Compared to this time last year, has sunspot activity increased, decreased or stayed the same? What is driving this question is my interest in arctic winters (last Nov/Dec in Ireland were mega!) and I just want to get a wee feel for how sunspot activity is at the moment.........thks in advance

Derekon

nacho libre · 09-09-2011 5:11pm

derekon wrote: »

Hi Redsunset, it would appear that you are the expert on solar weather so I have a question for you, if you don't mind.

Compared to this time last year, has sunspot activity increased, decreased or stayed the same? What is driving this question is my interest in arctic winters (last Nov/Dec in Ireland were mega!) and I just want to get a wee feel for how sunspot activity is at the moment.........thks in advance

Derekon

Sunspot activity has definitely increased, but not to the extent it should going into a Sunspot Maximum Cycle.

There seems to a difference of opinion around the effect the increase in Solar activity will have on our weather this winter-
Some long range forecasters now seem to think Solar Activity has picked up enough to bring us back to a normal zonal flow, while others are of the view it hasn't picked up enough to shift the pattern back to the normal circulation pattern.
One thing many do seem to agree on is an earlier start to winter this year.

nacho libre · 10-09-2011 12:08am

Actually, according to the following article the Sun has woken up significantly in recent days

http://www.space.com/12882-sun-solar-flares-faithful-sunspot.html

The sun is dead!! Mini iceage???

Comments