Sunspot decline could mean decades of cold UK winters British scientists have produced a new study suggesting that the Sun is coming to the end of a "grand solar maximum" – a long period of intense activity in the Sun – meaning that we in Blighty could be set for a long period of much colder winters, similar to those seen during the "little ice age" of the 17th and 18th centuries …
Please do "make an effort to read" Realclimate's interpretation of events, but also be aware that they are firmly pro-CAGW and sceptical comments may either be edited or simply vanish, no matter how politely worded. Don't take my word for it, though, have a look and comment away on their site if it takes your fancy. Let us know how you get on.
Quote: "...many professional climate scientists do not believe that variations in the Sun have any significant effect on the Earth's climate..."
If this statement is accurately reported then it makes me laugh even more at these so-called scientists. Sounds like complete b******s to me, how can the sun not have any significant effect on our planet or am I taking things out of context?
I doubt that they would say that huge variations would have no impact. I think they probably mean that they don't believe that the amount of variation so far observed in the Sun's activity has any significant effect. Or put another way, that the sun's activity doesn't appear to vary enough to cause significant change.
when you start looking at the real variations in climate change data, they are well matched to the sorts of changes you see in solar radiative output. The claim is that a 1 or 2 degree C change is catastrophic for the earth. By referencing C instead of K, they subtly shift the emphasis to water freezing instead of absolute 0. Plus or minus 1 degree at 32 C sounds a hell of a lot worse than plus or minus 2 degrees at 305.
While the energy input is from the sun, the amount trapped in the atmosphere by the CO2 "greenhouse" effects is what keeps us warm. Determine (a) likely variation in solar output with (b) likely variation in CO2 levels, and compare/contrast the respective heating effects.
Then concern yourself with all the confounding factors.
The effect of the sunspots stopping was estimated to be around 0.5 degrees C I believe which is why the scientists said it wasn't significant. Nowhere near a mini ice-age but enough to make a few more areas freeze than usual.
As shown in the article it is only around 1.5-2 degrees C difference between our recent mild winters and the previous 3 although they have been caused by air pressure drawing cold air from further north rather than solar phenomena.
So I think we need to burn more fossil fuels to warm up our planet if it’s going to cool down drastically. This decade will be the decade of the global cooling scaremongering. I personally don’t take notice of any of the climate brigade, they credibility was lost somewhere between cow’s farts and sheep bad breath.
"many professional climate scientists do not believe that variations in the Sun have any significant effect on the Earth's climate"
Because they'd rather prolong their careers built on blaming mankind for climate change.
"there is intense hostility to the idea from the green movement as it could de-emphasise the importance of human-driven carbon emissions."
Oh yes, mustn't let scientific fact get in the way of a nice little spiteful war on motorists must we.
Not only are we scientists prolonging our tenure-based careers by blaming mankind for climate change, and encouraging a spiteful war on motorists, we're also exercising our vast intellect and bottomless reserves of evil towards other ends. You. Yes, You. Indeed, we're ...
.. making plans for Nigel.
The skating on the Thames was partly because of the lower temperatures, but mostly because the Thames was much wider, much shallower and much slower-moving. The building of The Embankment and similar channeling of the Thames means that it is now far too fast moving to freeze without genuinely Arctic conditions.
The sea froze off the coast of Kent in the harsh winter of 1981 - so it does still occasionally happen.
The sea contains a fair amount of salt, and although the Thames sometimes resembles the river Ankh, it still counts as 'fresh' water. So it would freeze well before the sea would, if it got cold enough.
Has anyone asked Ms Hilton for an opinion?
My GF's father has a house right next to the Thames in Oxfordshire (yes, it is a very nice spot), and I can assure you that parts of it most definitely were frozen this last winter, and recall watching three ducks sat on a chunk of ice floating down the river.
Sure, it wasn't right across the river, and doubt it was strong enough to support Torvill and Dean, but it certainly has frozen to some extent.
According to Frank Hill at the National Solar Observatory the effect will be limited. Guess we shouldn't be getting our hopes up.
"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age."
http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html
No, their careers don't depend upon their theories, in Climate science (and most other science at pHD/Post Doc level) you generally only get 3 year research periods. Also, they are researching climate most of them don't care if global warming is happening or not (I do know a fair few doc/postdoc climate scientists) they just care about researching how the climate works. The issue is that the current research is suggesting that climate change is happening, it's causes are primarily man made and the best thing to do is understand it and work out what to do about it.
I work in datastorage, it pisses me off when people from other areas in IT tell me about how storage works. I hate to think how annoying it is when non-qualified people or people from other subjects tell climate scientists about their job and how it's all a great big conspiracy, or they're all incompetent.
> No, their careers don't depend upon their theories,
Research careers depend upon getting published.
As the CRU leaked emails revealed, active measures and sanctions were taken both against publishers who published "contrary" papers and against the authors who wrote them. Publishers, if they want the business, learn their lessons.
Since it is more difficult to publish papers that have theories that go against the mainstream you are less likely to be successful. Darwin takes care of the rest.
"However many professional climate scientists do not believe that variations in the Sun have any significant effect on the Earth's climate, and there is intense hostility to the idea from the green movement as it could de-emphasise the importance of human-driven carbon emissions."
Yeah, dont let simple logic stand in the way of a good scam, especially if its tax payer funded.
I alway love when they turn round and say that the sun has nothing to do with global temperatures.
Yeah because while we're spinning on this little rock and the rocking tilt in which it spins making parts of the planet point a few degrees closer or way from the sun doesnt do anything.. you know that whole summer / winter thing would happen anyway!? right?!
As someone pointed out first it was global cooling, for the next what 20 - 30 years it was global warming, and now its global cooling again, who whats to bet that in the next 20 - 30 years we'll be back to global warming again.. you know its almost like something on a cycle is causing this (no not your mother-in-law)..
Well we're just going to have to wait to see what the eco fascists say next to convince us that we need to pay the extra taxes so they can give the money to their friends.. er .. sorry I mean the capitains of eco industry so they can take their cut of the pie while giving it to another bunch of eco scammers in another country because 'they have more trees'?!?. And in return they give us 'credits' (whatever the f@#k that means) usually printed on paper (no they dont see the irony) so those who can afford to, can carry on polluting, while the rest of us who cant get fined.
No no your right it doesnt sound like those with the 'have more' screwing over those will little.
*\. Yeah I know "We've always been at war with Eastasia" far be it from me to question!
when IT people were clever people too.
The line "... many professional climate scientists do not believe that variations in the Sun have any significant effect on the Earth's climate..."
should read
"...professional climate scientists do not believe that variations in the Sun have had any significant effect on the recent changes in the Earth's climate..."
Big difference.
As I understand it, "global warming" implies more extreme weather events. This, coupled with the solar minimum, could be a predictor of shockingly cold winters followed by hellish hot summers.
Isn't the Maundering Minimum fingered as having done for the Viking settlements at Greenland?
You can either carry on like that, or come back when you know the difference between a season and climate.
A season is what is happening now, climate is what should be happening for the time of year.
Sadly, I suspect you'll just carry on regardless of your lack of knowledge with your zombee argument - that is I've just killed it, but you'll bring it back to life for the next "discussion" on climate.
"do not believe that variations in the Sun have any significant effect on the Earth's climate"
"Yeah because while we're spinning on this little rock and the rocking tilt in which it spins making parts of the planet point a few degrees closer or way from the sun doesnt do anything.. you know that whole summer / winter thing would happen anyway!? right?!"
What you'er desribing their to support your "hypothesis" is a variation in the earth. Do you see ?
I can't blame you because the writer's carefully chosen words "many professional climate scientists" is quite handy for suggesting that they have a vested interests. ~
Do you own research. Don't take Lewis' word for it. You sound as logical as the greens you apparently despise.
Good Bloody Point!
I would just like to mention that some things are bloody obvious, whilst others aren't that much so.
Remember, there is also heat from the core which will gradually cool over billions of years. Or so we think. And we also have to deal with *what* actually retains the heat in which we receive from the sun by ways of radiation.
Ultimately we are dealing with an extremely complex system. We as individual human beings are complex enough, and we are part of something greater.
There is a lot to be said about the Gaia hypothesis without going to the touchy-feely tree hugging level, and whilst I do not believe global warming/cooling/whatever FOTM is solely due to us humans, one cannot deny the fact that we have truly left our mark on this planet, and definitely have altered the balance one way or another. Deforestation. Mining. Industry.
We have even altered ourselves.
For better or worse, and I say this with great caution, and worry lest it cause any misinterpretation: we have removed or changed evolutionary selection pressure on ourselves.
I, for one, do not know for certain if I would be alive today were it for advances in medical science.
I maintain it took us god knows how many thousands of years living in the wild as hunter gatherers till civilisation and the industrial and now information age. These last bits happened very rapidly in our brief span of existence here on Earth, no more than a wink of an eye.
In this brief period, we have deforested thousands of square kilometres of jungle, forest. Strip mined. Caused entire species to have gone extinct. Nearly wiped ourselves out. We now number nearly 6 x 10^9. (Not going to go into the US versus European Billion issue).
Have we evolved mentally enough to deal with what we are capable of doing?
We may be smarter or cleverer collectively but are we any the wiser?
What do we do then? This is open for debate.
No matter what the argument is about CO2 and current theory of why the boffins think our climate is all fucked up, I think the wisest thing to do is nevertheless to try and minimize any sort of impact we have on our Earth.
Tread softly. This is easy to say but hard to do.
We only have one earth. Remember, we have wiped out more species and changed the face of our planet recently probably more than any other single species ever had, that we know of.
I do not believe taxes are the answer. I certainly do not want to pay them.
Personally I think the answer lies in our future generation and what they do.
But I have *NO* idea what to tell them, apart the need for restraint and wisdom, vague advice at best.
Ummm... Hope the Culture comes and rescues us? Nah.....
Well put, I whole heartedly agree with your statement. We desperately need long-term thinking on the part of politicians and peeps as a whole in order to grasp the fundamental nature of our responsibilities towards our home and the future generations who will occupy it. We will all be gone in the blink of and eye at some point in time, but making it easier and healthier for future generations to continue for as long as possible must be our main aim.
Puts me in mind of the old adage: "Whatever your cause, it's a lost cause, unless we limit human population".
The natural & commonest state of the Earth is to be inimical to complex life forms - for most of the planet's existence they simply haven't been / wont be able to exist. The current climate is atypical. Remember, 99.99...99% of species have gone extinct.
Which is probably why they call Nature a mother...
( yes I know thats almost a quote )
..but actually we're well above 6x10^9.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=earth's+population
Rapidly approaching 7x10^9 really. Apparently some predictions suggest that it will slow and maybe even go into decline as living standards improve. If true (probably a big if) it's rather ironic that the very things that a lot of environmentalists despise (call it 'western living standards') might actually come to our rescue and help reduce population.
Maybe.
This article sounds awfully like another one written by Lewis a couple of weeks ago where a number of people pointed out that the Thames freezing in winter had more to do with the river being wider, slower and partially obstructed by the old London Bridge.
If the Sun was responsible for the Little Ice Age you'd expect it to be a global phenomenon. Instead it is predominantly a Northern Hemisphere event with its epicentre over the Atlantic and Western Europe.
A better explanation for the Little Ice Age is that it was the result of increased levels of vulcanism in the Northern Hemisphere which continued through to the mid-19th Century. The most dramatic cooling - around the 1690s occurs at just the same time that ice cores from Greenland show a large increase in sulfur content - fallout from volcanic activity.
The injection of ash and sulfur compounds into the stratosphere would account for most of the observed cooling.
Oh, well it must be true, then.
Seriously, Mike - if you want to convince people then you need to cite real scientific research. You won't generally find that here, nor anywhere in the popular press. Real science rarely makes news, and when it does it's generally several years after the fact.
Who was it that said "The plural of anecdote isn't data"?
The difference in the amount of sun you receive between Summer and Winter is roughly 3-4%.
IIRC the sunspot level (from a recent article on El Reg) was something like 0.1%
*However* that ignores 2 things. The *spectrum* of those sunspots (and wheather they are high in radiation which strongly affects the atmosphere or not) and the associated bursts of high energy particles and there effect on things like cloud formation through nucleating water drop condensation.
If climate modeling and weather forecasting should have shown anything to *all* scientists it's *very* unwise to to dismiss *any* phenomena on such a large scale out of hand, given the CO2 levels discussed in the 100s of ppm. EG 300 ppm is 0.03 %
@Some Beggar - Er.. no retard! I Believe in Global Climate Change, just that there isnt any real proof to say its man-made, and the people who are saying its man-made have to flip-flop their position ever few decades so "their data" support "their hypothesis".
But lets just use childish words like Denialist instead of seeing it for what it really is a scam.
Instead of just taxing the poor of the world, but hey you live in a western nation shouldnt effect you to much.
@AC "What you'er desribing their to support your "hypothesis" is a variation in the earth. Do you see ?"
Oh really.. glad you pointed that out I may of missed that, I also didnt know that grass is green!
What I was try to point across but obviously fail by the looks of it, is that when we're (on the earth surface) are closer to the sun its warmer and when we're futher away its cold... surely not that hard of a concept to grasp!? So.. when the sun is 'active' it is throwing out MORE heat than when it is 'inactive'.. as indicated by the global warming and cooling of all the inner and some of the out planets of our solar system.
And as for some of these scientist having a vested interests. well some of them do, but I'm more concerned by what the zealot politians do with the information they are paying for.
I suggest you do your own research in this area. Because I dont have anything against being green, I do have issue with it when the powerful of the world use such tools to use as excuses to stand on the back of the poor.
From your last rant:
"Yeah because while we're spinning on this little rock and the rocking tilt in which it spins making parts of the planet point a few degrees closer or way from the sun doesnt do anything.. you know that whole summer / winter thing would happen anyway!? right?!"
"What I was try to point across but obviously fail by the looks of it, is that when we're (on the earth surface) are closer to the sun its warmer and when we're futher away its cold... surely not that hard of a concept to grasp!?"
That's your explanation of summer and winter, is it?
I can't really be bothered trying to decipher that semi-coherent paranoid rant, so I'll just respond the one vaguely legible assertion:
"there isnt any real proof to say its man-made"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
Feel free to believe that there is some global trillion-dollar conspiracy that has somehow managed to corrupt the work of hundreds of scientific institutions and publications over the course of the last forty years. It has as much credibility as a Bush-done-9/11 conspiracy theory.
Oh god. I foolishly read further and got to this:
"closer to the sun its warmer and when we're futher away its cold"
Is it any wonder there are concerns about our education system if people manage to survive to adulthood while believing that this is why we have summer and winter.
[five-handed facepalm]
It's worse than that - that's an actual reason taught to students early on because "the actual explanation is harder to understand".
No joke. They're taught that Earth's orbit is elliptical, so we're closer to Sol during Summer. Any child that dares question the Northern/Southern hemisphere difference is told to shut it.
Unfortunately, I'm talking about UK secondary schools (year 7 or 8).
I don't know how prevalent this is; my example was in a London school. The teacher herself wasn't entirely sure on the real reason (and some commentards here, apparently), but no one had ever told her she was actively lying before.
I put it down to the lack of science-specific teachers - a problem that's not going to get any better with the current government plans.
It's a sad day when education isn't considered to be important.
""What you'er desribing their to support your "hypothesis" is a variation in the earth. Do you see ?""
I think its the variation in the earth's closeness to the sun thats making the difference between summer and winter, and not the earth gets warmer just because its tilted over a little....ie the closeness of the sun does make a difference to the temperature of the earth, and therefore
"...do not believe that variations in the Sun have any significant effect on the Earth's climate..."
must be wrong !
hint: we're talking about different variations here...
It was only this (Wednesday) morning that the BBC had the usual tofu eaters bleating on about how AGW was real and going to be the the end of all of us. The University of East Anglia must be getting a bit cash strapped and need to fund their bad science a bit more, presumably with a rise in green taxes. Now if the News of the Screws could hack these characters' phones...
There was nothing about global cooling at all. There is no global cooling on the BBC website.
I really wish they would make their minds up. Is it going to be thermogeddon or earth sized snowball?
Mines is the one with the drowning dog in the pocket.
O am currently looking for investors in my plan to buy up all the 4x4 that are going dirt cheap right now because of the total cost of owning and running one of these beasts....
the plan in to grease them up and wrap them in plastic to preserve them in a old airoplane hanger somewhere.
then when this mini ice age really hits us hard we can all make a good profit selling on all the Chelsea tractors that we have stored up !!!
Any takers?
It's not the colder winters that are the problem. Lots of places have far colder winters than Britain. The problem is the reduction in the length of the growing season. A reduction in this leads to less food coming out of the land. In the Maunder Minimum, this led to starvation and an economic downturn.
...the Maunder Minimum was around the turn of the 18th century, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they didn't have the global food-shipping industry and transport infrastructure that we have today.
Wouldn't the same phenomenon in Britain today simply cause a temporary rise in food prices?
Being a "very" amateur solar observer I would like to point out that the sunspot activity has increased now this year so if there is a Maunder Minimum it may have passed, but the colder winters have corresponded exactly to the sun state.
It is a proven fact that when the sun is not very active the solar winds from coronal holes, CME's etc affect the outer layers of the earths atmosphere and magnetic fields which do in turn affect temperature.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast08dec98_1/
I could cite more evidence but I do not want to make this post to big.
Now if you go back in history taking the solar cycle into account and align it to the recorded climate in my opinion you cannot refuse that there is no correlation between the two.
Please spend 5 mins to check the cycle out and form your own opinions.
Just my 2p worth.
Not very often I post a thread, I normally just snipe :-)
Boffin? Nah, I wish.
that "global warming / global cooling / climate change" is NOT actually the real issue?
The real, serious, and tangentially deadly effect is that global weather stands a good chance of becoming MORE chaotic than it already is.
The global agricultural industry relies on mostly accurate long-range weather forecasting; if that becomes more difficult to achieve, then agriculture becomes a riskier business. Thus; less investment, lower yields; oh dear the neighbouring country has just invaded us because "we get all their rain".
Higher highs, lower lows, rain falling where it shouldn't: what happens when the Indian monsoon falls out to sea instead of inland? Oh bugger, a nuclear armed country of 1.2 billion people suddenly goes unstable.. and hungry.
It's not global warming, global cooling or climate change that worries me, it's human adaptability to unpredictable change. History has shown us that by and large 'human adaptability' is usually military in nature and involves a lot of people having their rights revoked. That's K-I-L-L-E-D 'revoked'.
Are you thinking of India or China?
China's rapid economic growth and its huge external investment (and the fact that it has millenia of experience of being run by hard-arsed autocrats) probably insulates it to a fair degree from global instability caused by climate change.
I'd be more worried about India and its neighbours.
And without wishing to get into a semantic argument, climate change _is_ the issue because what most people mean by climate change is not simple warming or cooling but just "a change to the climate that makes things less safe and comfortable for the human population".
.....Ah! - they are the ones who GET PAID for talking C**P.
We live a mere 93million miles from a raging nuclear furnace.
Because of the Earth's tilt, the temperature from Summer to Winter can vary by a large amount 20degrees or more, so does it not make sense that variations in the SUN's activity MIGHT just cause the variations in Earth's temperature?
On no - of course - I don't get PAID to know what I am talking about.
It's all about taxing the public (aka A SCAM!!!!!)
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus"
Hate to tell you but the 'Consesus' is a fallacy.
Just about anyone who spoke out against or even simply questioned the Sanctification of the doctrine, either lost their job (if lucky) or got not only demonised but ridiculed. Yeah sounds like a good way of getting 'consesus' to me.
"Feel free to believe that there is some global trillion-dollar conspiracy that has somehow managed to corrupt the work of hundreds of scientific institutions and publications over the course of the last forty years. It has as much credibility as a Bush-done-9/11 conspiracy theory."
Yeah nice argument there tosspot look at this and then believe, oh no dont question, dont look at it and say well this is inconclusive this can be taken either way and this out right says the opposite, its enough that its there now believe!!. and if you dont look flying sauces and little green men. heres a tin-foil hat. how dare you question the religon [insert other pathtic insult]
"Is it any wonder there are concerns about our education system if people manage to survive to adulthood while believing that this is why we have summer and winter."
..Right!?...So!... We dont get Summer / Winter due to our position on the Earth.. okay.. I'm sat down.. what man made magic spell is causing us to have seasons then?
Maybe its some fat American who keeps jogging then stopping and all the excess heat is causing the planet to get warm.. throw us a bone we obvisouly need educating here..
"we obvisouly need educating here.."
That's the first semi-sensible thing you've said.
The seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the earth: the angle between the plane of our annual orbit around the sun and the axis of our daily rotation of the planet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasons#Causes_and_effects
"insert other pathtic insult"
You entered the conversation by calling climate scientists fascists, responded to polite corrections by calling people retards and your latest post calls me a tosspot. You're not very good at the internet. Perhaps you should go outside and play.
Well done.. well done for just repeating what I've already been saying.. bravo!
"The seasons are caused by the axial tilt of the earth: the angle between the plane of our annual orbit around the sun and the axis of our daily rotation of the planet."
"while we're spinning on this little rock and the rocking tilt in which it spins making parts of the planet point a few degrees closer or way from the sun doesnt do anything."
And at what point did I call the "Climate Scientists" fascists.. sounds like your reading what you want to read, Not what I'm actually writing.
I refered to the "Eco-fascists" which is a correct and apt description, zealot would also be another label.
I would suggest reading what they are putting into writing (thats the policy makers (who arent necessarily politicians, rather more political elites who use they money and power to not only twist opinion but help put 'their' policies in place) and well as what drops out of their mouths during interviews. Because if they did care about true green policies, then regulation on large industries would be what they should be purposing. Not taxation on small bussinesses and the individual. And no amount of money should allow anyone to pollute more than anyone else.
I may not believe in "man-made" climate change, but I do believe in climate change, and the best way to safe guard against this. Because the main difference between "man-made" and natural. Is they make you believe it can be solved (through laughable projects) - it cant. Its a natural product of the Earths present around our sun - get used to it.
So it would be more worth while to clean our industries, so they dont pollute our lands and water.
While sorting out other regions of the planet like Africa so they can grow and provide food incase there ever is a shortage. And things like money shouldnt be applied to nations that are starving, there is no reason why any person on this planet should go hungary, and yet through the fraud (and yes that is not only apt but correct) that is our monetary system, millions die.
So you go ahead and support "political bodies" such as the IPCC, just dont be suprised if nothing gets done.
What you actually said was:
"when we're [] closer to the sun its warmer and when we're futher away its cold... surely not that hard of a concept to grasp!?"
This is complete nonsense. The earth has a radius of about 6 million metres and an axial tilt of about 23 degrees. We are on average about 150 billion metres away from the sun and our distance varies by about 5 billion metres over the course of a year. Radiation in a vacuum follows an inverse square law.
How can you expect to be taken seriously on the complicated subject of climate change when you don't even understand basic physics or the very simple mechanism behind the seasons?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
