Global Cooling around the corner?

[stubeeef]

While the mechanism for the recent temp rises are debateable, the fact is a bald sun> low or no sun spots> yields a very predictable result.

http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.

In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.

I wonder what gore's position on bald suns.

[t0mat0]

The solar argument is preetty vacous.

"Meteorologist Anthony Watts, who runs a climate data auditing site, tells DailyTech the sunspot numbers are another indication the "sun's dynamo" is idling. According to Watts, the effect of sunspots on TSI (total solar irradiance) is negligible, but the reduction in the solar magnetosphere affects cloud formation here on Earth, which in turn modulates climate."

I thought Svensmark's work had been pretty widely peer review panned. Oh wait, it has been:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

How would a bit more cloud, but the same solar energy coming in affect global warming negatively? niet. Fairly rapidly rising greenhouse gas concentrations on the other hand...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/ also.

or maybe http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media

Why the sun couldn't have more than one cycle? The movement of the Earth has several.

[.Andy]

I wonder what gore's position on bald suns.
In-depth intellectual discussion from stubeeef right here.

[Queso]

We've all but destroyed the marine ecosystem and are busy doing the same to forest regions across northern Asia and around the Equator, but luckily the convenient timing of low sunspot activity means we can ignore environmental issues for another decade :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When is this stupid race of idiotic apes going to get it? Managing the environment is MUCH MUCH more than just "global warming"!!!

**** me!! We're a bunch of twats, really we are.

[Jaffa Cake]

Hopefully we'll see the construction and deployment of a giant space toupé to cover the baldness and solve this issue.

Unfortunately, I think there's more chance of that happening than our politicians actually taking sensible action on the environment.

[stubeeef]

Global Cooling comes back in a big way


Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.
Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.

Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.
Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.

However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.

Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.


Buy shorts or long underwear.
Bold is mine..
Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

[Queso]

All that says to me is that we've possibly been lucky with the timing. However, if CO2 levels really are already at record levels thanks to human activity and we do absolutely nothing to correct it, what happens when the Sun picks up again, as it most certainly will?

[stubeeef]

There is nothing positive that I am aware of in polution. There is nothing positive that I am aware of in wasting natural resources. While there are some causal links from Green House Gases to the rise in temperatures, there are other explanations as well. Is it one thing or another, is it a combination of catalysts...I just find that we often over look the weather machine that we all depend on more than anything, the SUN.
NASA has been putting out material for years about increased solar activity but it doesn't get much play.
It sounds like some of the scientists in the articles above have been spot on (pun intended) with their predictions>against a stream of pooh poohers.
Time will tell, it maybe too early to sell that Vail Condo, or send the long johns to good will. Buy a warm coat this year, with energy supplies expensive, we could end up with a big BBbbbrrrr.

[EricNau]

The sun goes through this cycle every 11 years... We just passed the period of least activity earlier this year, but feel free to resurrect this topic in five years if there still haven't been any sunspots.

[Eraserhead]

We've all but destroyed the marine ecosystem and are busy doing the same to forest regions across northern Asia and around the Equator, but luckily the convenient timing of low sunspot activity means we can ignore environmental issues for another decade :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When is this stupid race of idiotic apes going to get it? Managing the environment is MUCH MUCH more than just "global warming"!!!

**** me!! We're a bunch of twats, really we are.

Well if we havent destoryed the forests already, they already look pretty damaged in Argentina, and from the map of the Argentina/Paraguay/Brazil region they seem to be the "good guys".

The environment is serious.

[Eraserhead]

There is nothing positive that I am aware of in polution. There is nothing positive that I am aware of in wasting natural resources. While there are some causal links from Green House Gases to the rise in temperatures, there are other explanations as well.

Are you just ignoring Queso? Its not just global warming thats a problem here.

[paddy]

All this kinda stuff scares me! :o

[stubeeef]

The sun goes through this cycle every 11 years... We just passed the period of least activity earlier this year, but feel free to resurrect this topic in five years if there still haven't been any sunspots.

Hasn't been through one of these cycles in 50-100 years (did you actually read the article?), so I don't think I will bother to resurrect this one at in 50+ years.

[hulugu]

There seems to be a lot of inference in the article. A short-term "idling" of sunspots may or may not make a significant alteration in the Earth's climate because while the TSI doesn't change much with sun-spot activity. What's more interesting is how sunspots affect the magnetosphere, which helps to modulate climate.

And furthermore, as this diagram from NASA suggests, this "idling" may not last more than a year.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

So, we may end up with a larger climate swing. In other words, rather than mitigating "global warming" it may actually amplify its affects.

It's definitely weird and unsettling. It's also good to see how science works, someone used observation to make a prediction and then it turned out they were right. We learned something.

[stubeeef]

We've all but destroyed the marine ecosystem and are busy doing the same to forest regions across northern Asia and around the Equator, but luckily the convenient timing of low sunspot activity means we can ignore environmental issues for another decade :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

When is this stupid race of idiotic apes going to get it? Managing the environment is MUCH MUCH more than just "global warming"!!!

**** me!! We're a bunch of twats, really we are.

You are saying that talking about sun spot activity and solar output we have decided to pollute more? Were did you get that from? If we are about to enter into a very cold cycle, somebody ought to get ready cause a lot more folk ain't gonna get any food. The sun is the largest influence on our weather, bar none. Making this seem like an excuse to pollute just diverts the conversation away from some fundemental questions.

[Queso]

The Sun has more than one solar cycle. The 11 year one is best known because it's so frequent and associated with Sunspots, but there are also cycles every 22, 87 and 210 years.
You are saying that talking about sun spot activity and solar output we have decided to pollute more? Were did you get that from? If we are about to enter into a very cold cycle, somebody ought to get ready cause a lot more folk ain't gonna get any food. The sun is the largest influence on our weather, bar none. Making this seem like an excuse to pollute just diverts the conversation away from some fundemental questions.
No, I'm saying that we're already polluting at a level way more than the planet can balance, but that thanks to politicians and the media concentrating all the attention on the single "global warming" phrase any drop in temperature is going to put the brakes on governmental efforts to reduce pollution through educating the populace. Of course I have nothing yet to back that up, but I'll put money on the usual human stupidity and selfishness leading to an increase in pollution as people simply think it doesn't matter anymore should the temperature drop.

[stubeeef]

The Sun has more than one solar cycle. The 11 year one is best known because it's so frequent and associated with Sunspots, but there are also cycles every 22, 87 and 210 years.

Correct, very good! Now how often have we a bald one for a month?

some of the conversations on this for 3 or so years..
stubeeef and MR solar threads (http://forums.macrumors.com/search.php?searchid=12317732)

[hulugu]

Correct, very good! Now how often have we a bald one for a month?

Well, the article provides some of the answer. We've been tracking sun spot activity since 1749. So, at least once every 259 years.


some of the conversations on this for 3 or so years..
stubeeef and MR solar threads (http://forums.macrumors.com/search.php?searchid=12317732)

[stubeeef]

Well, the article provides some of the answer. We've been tracking sun spot activity since 1749. So, at least once every 259 years.

Well reading the article it is once every 100 yrs, so this is not unprecidented just unusual.

[hulugu]

Well reading the article it is once every 100 yrs, so this is not unprecidented just unusual.

Hey, you asked the question. ;)

But, you're right, the lack of sunspots appears to be another of the sun's cycles and could result in a slight cooling. It's very interesting that something we often think of as a constant is actually this broiling, changing thing. It's an interesting subject.

[stubeeef]

The Sun has more than one solar cycle. The 11 year one is best known because it's so frequent and associated with Sunspots, but there are also cycles every 22, 87 and 210 years.

No, I'm saying that we're already polluting at a level way more than the planet can balance, but that thanks to politicians and the media concentrating all the attention on the single "global warming" phrase any drop in temperature is going to put the brakes on governmental efforts to reduce pollution through educating the populace. Of course I have nothing yet to back that up, but I'll put money on the usual human stupidity and selfishness leading to an increase in pollution as people simply think it doesn't matter anymore should the temperature drop.

So we shouldn't say anything ever about science that will effect government and societies need to go green? huh?
Listen, we had better know what we are doing before we do it.
There are people out there crying for tree farms, that when modeled short term make things better, but long term make them worse. who would have thought this? (http://www.livescience.com/environment/041109_wind_mills.html)
I will never advocate relaxing stances on pollution long term, I am saying that we better explore things, cause if we keeping looking for a right handed punch we may get a left upper hook, ie a year with very little food. You may have a year where clean air isn't nearly as important as some food.
So, while I don't advocate messing with the sun, I do advocate forecasting and planning if needed.
I thought I would ask too if there were some good scientist around here that might pile on.
The link I had gave me these threads..
one of them (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=130010&highlight=solar+sun)

[hulugu]

...No, I'm saying that we're already polluting at a level way more than the planet can balance, but that thanks to politicians and the media concentrating all the attention on the single "global warming" phrase any drop in temperature is going to put the brakes on governmental efforts to reduce pollution through educating the populace. Of course I have nothing yet to back that up, but I'll put money on the usual human stupidity and selfishness leading to an increase in pollution as people simply think it doesn't matter anymore should the temperature drop.

And, if you haven't already heard me say it, I really dislike the term "global warming." I think the correct term should be Anthropogenic Climate Change. It's not that the Earth is getting hotter necessarily, but rather that human beings are altering the climate by dumping millions of tons of CO2 (and other gases) into the air. Furthermore, ACC also can more easily incorporate other problems such as the increasing Carbon Acid levels in the oceans, which I think is an issue that should scare people more than the possibility of changing hurricane activity.

But, science should continue to understand how the sun affects our atmosphere and relates to our climate. If governments choose to misuse this information to ignore ACC that's a different problem.

In this Stubeeef is correct.

[EricNau]

For anyone still interested, the New England Skeptical Society addressed this topic in their weekly 5 minute podcast, the Skeptic's Guide 5x5 (#35), along with Dr. Pamela Gay from Astronomy Cast.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/5x5/index.asp

In summary, she doesn't believe there's any reason to be concerned, not yet at least. At this point, there's no reason to believe the Sun is exhibiting any abnormal behavior.

[solvs]

I posted something in another thread awhile ago about the fact that while we had the hottest temps on record, we also had the coolest. As said, Global Climate Change, not just Global Warming. While this isn't exactly on topic, just figured I'd throw that out there if you're going to ruin the post with talk of what Gore would think when it actually doesn't have much to do with him nor his position(s).

[Scarlet Fever]

I don't care about global warming, climate change or sunspots. It's all too heavily debated, and no-one is really going to win.

What I do care about it the unnecessary burning of crude oil. We are wasting this stuff at an increasing rate, and if we want to continue living in the manner we do, with our heavy reliance on plastics, we're going to have to stop burning it. If it slows the destruction of the ozone layer, that's just a bonus.

[solvs]

It's all too heavily debated
It really isn't.

[Elven]

But their is theories flying about, none of which are proven, just agreed upon.

[solvs]

But their is theories flying about, none of which are proven, just agreed upon.

No, there are proven theories overwhelmingly agreed on by a majority of the scientific community, with only some of the details argued over. The only debate is in the political landscape. And a handful of scientists, some on the payroll of who you'd think they'd be.

[Desertrat]

Looks to me like the long-term trend is for warming. Things like critters' available habitat expanding northward. Flowers opening earlier and growing farther north. I'm not surprised at blips of cooling. "Nature abhors straight lines."

I admit to being dubious as to homo sap's CO2 contribution being causal or strongly contributory, but that's rather beside the point, really. Given what's going on in the developing nations, the world output of CO2 will not decline.