E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AFP - Getty Images
The sun unleashes a powerful solar flare from the right side of its disk on June 7, as seen in this image from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. Scientists say the sun is heading toward a peak in its activity cycle in 2013 or so, but may enter a period of hibernation afterward.
Last updated 3:15 p.m. ET
The latest long-range space forecast predicts a prolonged drop in solar activity after the next peak — and scientists say that might cool down temperatures here on Earth, or at least slow down the warming trend a bit.
Scientists have studied sunspots and the sun's 11-year activity cycle for 400 years, and they're getting increasingly savvy about spotting the harbingers of "space weather" years in advance, just as meteorologists can figure out what's coming after the next storm.
Storms from the sun are expected to build to a peak in 2013 or so, but after that, the long-range indicators are pointing to an extended period of low activity — or even hibernation.
"This is important because the solar cycle causes space weather ... and may contribute to climate change," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, told journalists today.
In the past, such periods have coincided with lower-than-expected temperatures on Earth. The most famous example is the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots from 1645 to 1715. Average temperatures in Europe sank so low during that period that it came to be known as "the Little Ice Age."
The linkage between solar activity and climate change is still a matter of scientific debate. And even if there is a link, it's not clear how solar-caused global cooling might interact with industrial global warming due to greenhouse-gas emissions. Climate scientists say the swings in solar activity that they've studied so far have had little or no impact on temperatures or other climate indicators — and they don't expect to see a big impact even if the sun goes quiet for a decade or longer.
But if today's forecast is correct, solar physicists and climatologists will have a golden opportunity to find out for sure.
Hill said scientists had "no way of predicting" how long the hibernation period might last. "It may very well last as long as the Maunder Minimum ... if it occurs," he said.
Hill and other experts on solar activity announced the long-range forecast today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division, being conducted this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, N.M.
How do they know?
The forecast is based on three indicators thought to be tied to long-range solar activity, the comparative rise and fall of sunspots over the activity cycle, as well as the brightness of those sunspots; patterns in the sun's internal "jet stream" of superheated plasma; and the pace of migration in the sun's magnetic field toward the poles, as seen in the sun's corona.
An unusually low number of sunspots have been observed during the current cycle, and the spots are fainter than average. Scientists say they have seen no sign of a characteristic east-west flow of internal plasma, which usually sets the stage for future increases in activity. And the magnetic "rush to the poles" appears to be slowing down.
All these signs suggest that the current solar cycle, Cycle 24, "may be the last one for quite some time," Hill said. The next upswing in solar storms, Cycle 25, may be "very much delayed ... very weak, or may not happen at all."
Beyond the climate effect, solar activity is known to have a significant potential impact on satellite operations, electric power grids and even exposure to radiation at high-altitudes. Solar storms can disrupt satellite signals or air-traffic navigation systems. In 1989, a solar outburst caused a widespread power outage in Quebec. And particularly strong solar flares have forced astronauts to take shelter in shielded areas of the space shuttle or the International Space Station.
Some observers have worried about the possibility of a massive geomagnetic super-storm like the one that swept over Earth in 1859, known as the "Carrington event." For those folks, the news that the sun appears to be settling down, coupled with indications that the 2013 solar maximum is not expected to be unusually strong, should be reassuring.
About that ice age ...
Hill and two other solar physicists involved in formulating the forecast, NSO researcher Matt Penn and Richard Altrock of the U.S. Air Force's coronal research program, said there was not yet enough data to firm up a climate connection to solar activity. But they and other scientists have noted that historic lulls in sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum and another solar minimum between 1790 and 1830, coincided with cooler temperatures.
Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the founders of the RealClimate blog, said the effects of solar activity on climate over the past 30 years have been "at the margin of what we can detect."
"They are detectable in the high atmosphere, but when you get down to the surface, there is so much other stuff going on that it's been really hard to get a clean signal," he told me.
One of the reasons why so little is known about solar effects on climate is that the sun's highs and lows have been within such a narrow range in recent history.
"If we were to see a return to what's called Maunder Minimum conditions in the next 50 years or so, that would be interesting," Schmidt said. "I think we'd learn a lot about solar physics and solar variability. ... It's going to be scientifically very exciting if all this pans out."
Even then, however, he estimated that the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions would be on the order of 10 times as great. "What you might see over a 20- to 30-year period is a slight slowdown in the pace of warming," Schmidt said. "In terms of how we should think about climate change prediction in the future, reducing emissions and so on, it really wouldn't make much of a difference."
But what about the Little Ice Age in the 1600s, when Swiss Alpine villages were reported destroyed by encroaching glaciers? Schmidt said that period also coincided with an upswing in volcanic emissions, which are known more definitely to contribute to global cooling.
"Parsing out how much of that was solar, how much of that was volcanic and how much of that was just noise ... that's tricky," Schmidt said.
Will this latest forecast be used to argue that we don't need to worry about global warming? Or will the effect of solar hibernation (if it even occurs) turn out to be a blip at best? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More on solar weather:
- U.N. to upgrade space weather forecasts
- Sun unleashes 'spectacular' solar storm
- Solar cycle sparks doomsday buzz; don't panic
- Still more about space weather from msnbc.com
The studies presented at this week's SPD meeting in Las Cruces include "Large-Scale Zonal Flows During the Solar Minimum — Where Is Cycle 25?" by Frank Hill, R. Howe, R. Komm, J. Christensen-Dalsgaard, T.P. Larson, J. Schou and M.J. Thompson; "A Decade of Diminishing Sunspot Vigor" by W.C. Livingston, M. Penn and L. Svalgard; and "Whither Goes Cycle 24? A View From the Fe XIV Corona" by R.C. Altrock.
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like a 1 - 2 punch with the melting glaciers to cause freezing temps and massive blizzards.
I've commented before on the expected significant decline in solar activity resulting from a much weaker current solar cycle, and it should be interesting to see the impact. Of course, those scientists vested in 'global warming' and the huge amount of funding available will be naysayers, so it might be nice to get 'unbiased' opinions from other scientists with no 'conflict of interest', but I guess that would be too much to ask of the media. In any event, here is an interesting link to the "Little Ice Age";
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity
Here is another interesting link, showing the predictions related to solar cycle 24 - the graphs are most interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24
In any event, we should be far more concerned about the possible damage caused by global 'cooling' than about global 'warming' since a distinct cooling trend could result in the deaths of hundreds of millions from crop failures.
So Rob Roy strikes again. Same tired stuff as before Rob.
Jeff--thanks for your "facts". Roy has it right. Solar cycles (11 year and many longer ones) are by far the biggest influence on our climate, unlike what pseudo-scientists like Al Gore would like you to believe.
Again, thanks for your insight and "facts".
Yes, those sneaky scientists all lying their faces off to get that grant money. Not like say. the fossil fuel industries who are conerned only with the betterment of mankind.
Oh, No!! That can't be,, global cooling because of the new dynamics on the sun...?Al Gore has got to be disappointed on this news.
Should be interesting though, another Maunder Minimun on its way? Get back into those coal mines, chop that wood and stay warm.
I don't have a link but a group of Russian scientists considering sun activity, CO2, deforestation, rampant construction, ocean current changes, etc. along with historic core samples and other geologic markers actually predicted we would be in line for a significant global cooling cycle within approx 50 years. They suggested that it could lead to almost year around freezing temps in Canada and the Northern US. This was done back in the 90's before the global warming excitement. Could be interesting to see what happens over the next 25yrs.
My prediction is the cooling period will give the science deniers grounds to further deregulate the worst polluters and kill the EPA and a complacent consumerist public won't bat an eye. Then when the sun cycles back up and things are far, far worse the science deniers will look baffled and cry "How could we have known?"
article states " linkage between solar activity and climate change is still a matter of scientific debate. And even if there is a link"
The UN argues that their is no link between solar out put and climate. This is their cornerstone for man caused climate change. Wake UP this is a UN scam aimed at redistribution of american middle class wealth by the international banking elite who collect our labor and decide how to distribute our labor. If you cant understand that then you should eliminate your carbon footprint completely for gaia. darwin may have been correct.
Roy - crop failure can just as easily occur from too much heat as from too little water. Regardless of the cause, the tragedy will be the population surge northward from the tropics toward the north polar countries. Just look at your world globe - most of the land-mass is in the northern hemisphere with the Arctic Ocean in the middle. The southern hemisphere is already mostly desert, southern Africa, Australia, Chile, and Argentina, with the continent of Antarctica, a virtual desert, in the middle. Migration will drive us north as the tropic zones become unbearably hot.
And who says that a particular "effect" must result from only one "cause?" Some things happen because other things occur simultaneously, and not in sequence separated by long periods of time.
Spooky !!
Let's get the Climategate scientists at Copenhagen to visit the residents on the Sun and explain to them that they are causing the Climate to Change here on Earth and they will be assessed $ 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 for World Re-distribution to counter their unlawful damage to the solar system.
Moke - think about it for a few minutes. If the sun goes out right now. You freeze to death in hours and man made lighting systems will only last sooo long.
The solar cycle activities are almost a perfectly match to the heating and cooling of the planet since tracking sunspot activity began over 150 years ago. NOTHING else comes even close. Temperature rises after carbon rises as often as temperature rises before carbon rises as often the two act totally independent. To figure this out, all you have to do is closely examine the charts that have been cited as proof.
The predictions I was paying attention to said the Solar Cycle 24 would be weaker, and if so the next two would be even weaker before the sun would really wake up again.
The question is are we going to forget about the AGW people and run to the Earth to be an Ice cube group? I hope not.
To try and deny a link between solar activity and temperatures on earth is like trying to deny that the sky is blue. If you look at historical records going back hundreds of years the correlation is readily apparent. Whether we will see another Maunder Minimum is open to debate, but the fact that we are headed for a period of reduced solar activity is not.
I find the comment in the article "The next upswing in solar storms, Cycle 25, may be "very much delayed ... very weak, or may not happen at all" to be a little absurd. To say the next upswing "may not happen at all" is ridiculous, unless you think the sun is going to die completely. Another upswing cycle will occur, it is just a matter of when. I also find it interesting that the bring up the increase in the amount of volcanic activity as an influencer of temperatures. In other articles, scientists have claimed that this has virtually no impact when compared to AGW. I do not buy this, it is just interesting that there are such huge differences of opinion about things like this hen we have centuries of historical records to look at for correlations. It seems that which cause a scientist believes is most responsible for climate change correlates very closely to the views that most benefit those that are funding the research. There is a saying that figure don't lie, liars figure, and that definitely appears to be the case with most of these so-called scientists. To quote that great American writer Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) - "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
My question is about how do these objects I have been photographing around the sun have an impact if any at at all on the sun. I have witnessed effects occurring that to date have not been explained. I have taken thousands of photos that clearly show something quit amazing. #p/u/8/WhMtY76L6Ys
thats on youtube/dalston64
This is what many people who deny the existence of "global warming" and "climate change" will point to as the real cause of temperature changes. I neither agree or disagree with that observation, but the global warming debate is a distraction from the real issue happening right now.
What effect is burning fossil fuel having on the environment? It doesn't matter because when worldwide oil production peaks, petroleum based products will get so expensive we won't be able to afford them anyway. This is the real threat facing the world.
So then the prediction is that the next 10 years or so will see a cooling trend? My question to those who think mans activities are insignificant...if there is no cooling but an continued increase in temperatures will you finally accept that climate change is due to man?
I only ask because Roy is well known for posting hyperbolic crap that is very often wrong and I want to get a sense for your intellectual honesty on this issue.
The earth's climate is not now, nor has it ever been, static. Therefore, 'climate change' is NORMAL. The debate is how much of the current trend is due to man-made conditions.
The earth's mean temperature has risen recently. You do not know for sure how much of that rise is man made, and niether does anybody else. Be honest about that much, if you can.
Did you know that for 94% of the earth's history, there were no ice caps at all? From that historical perspective, the earth is just edging back toward 'normal' as we see glaciers and ice caps melt away.
Trying to prevent the natural fluctuations of the earth's climate by lowering emissions is a pipe dream. Lowering pollutants is great and by all means should be done. But to think we're going to control the climate at some artificial ideal set point is beyond ludicrous.
How can any scientist debate whether the sun plays a role in the earth's climate? Without the sun, the earth's temp would be absolute zero. If the sun were just a bit more massive, the earth would be too hot to sustain life, much like the planet Venus. Everything that happens on the sun affects our climate- it's a closed system. The only debate is how much the sun's energy actually fluctuates, and nobody had all the facts on that yet.
Volcanic activity is by far the most likely cause of the periodic ice ages that have lasted for tens of thousands of years each. Good luck raising the funds to prevent the next one!
I'm always amazed at how many nuclear scientists, meteorologists and psychologists there are on the internet. That's why I've stopped reading books or watching the news and just get all my info from posting boards. THanks everyone.
Roy Wilson makes a valid point, that there are other factors than human activity with the potential to affect climate. Some, such as the projected (and theorized) steep decline in solar activity, have the potential to impact global climate much more than man.
But he takes his position too far with his allusions to the huge funding of "Global Warming" studies, and the unwillingness of the media to report contrary theories. There is far more money behind the traditional energy industries than for studies of Global Warming, and regarding media bias, I'll just point out that this story is being reported in this same media he decries, and reported even though, to date, it is just a prediction by a group of scientists that the sun will behave in a certain manner over the next several decades.
Whatever the sun does, it does not change the underlying facts supporting the current impact of human activity on climate. Over the last 150 years, while the suns radiance has remained relatively stable, our climate has undoubtedly warmed, significantly. We know the CO2 has a measurable effect on the Earth's atmosphere's ability to retain heat. We also know that human activity over the past 150 years has been releasing significant amounts of this and other greenhouse gases. It is neither ivory-tower theorizing nor liberal propaganda to note the correspondence between these two events and deduce a link.
If this new prediction regarding solar activity proves accurate, it may temporarily mitigate the impact of the human activity on Global Climate. But 50 or 100 years hence, when the sun resumes a higher level of output, the ecological bill will come due, with interest. A rational mind would plan to use this possible grace period to modify human activity and prepare for the future. But when has humanity ever collectively acted in a rational manner?
"it's not clear how solar-caused global cooling might interact with industrial global warming due to greenhouse-gas emissions."
Isn't it also possible that "industrial global warming" is actually the other end of the solar activity cycle, as much of that data shows? There is a very close correlation between solar activity and earth temps...much closer than the supposed carbon dioxide/temperature correlation....
That's exactly what it is--a correlation--and nothing more.
jimlat - Why do you waste your time trying to use logic and intelligent argument on liberals? You may as well try to convince a dog to sing opera.
Look back at the PETM and carbon and the climate
its not a liberal or conservative value- its simply science.
Schmidt said that C02 had 10 times the forcing that solar activity had- are you listening?
Peter- Schmidt is full of schidt!
Jimlat - IF you had read the article and fully absorbed it, you might have noted that the last measurable, long term dip in the suns output occurred over 300 years ago. Over the last 150 years, the suns output has remained relatively stable. There are short cyclical changes, occurring on roughly an eleven year basis, but the hottest points of these cycles has not been increasing.
So no, is is not 'also possible that "industrial global warming" is actually the other end of the solar activity cycle".
D_Loominator - If you listen closely, you may hear Lassie singing an aria.
Just another reason for the price of oil to go up...
Might offset Global warming...
In that case, perhaps, the entire solar system in fact "is aware" of itself, using feedback mechanism to make necessary adjustments to maintain "homeostasis." And why not--why shouldn't the system be "alive" when we consider ourselves to be "alive"?
Don't try to distract us with logic, in America EMOTIONAL over investment is what rules our country, reasoning, facts & proof have no place in our lives anymore..!
So now these "scientists" want to tell us it's getting COLDER? MAKE UP YOUR MINDS! First we're hot, then we're cold! This is PROOF that global warming is a HOAX.
...okay, I gotta cut this short. My co-workers are wondering why I'm laughing so much as I'm typing.
Don't worry. Your co-workers probably thought that the latest joke on 'The Simpsons" from the previous night finally clicked. Proof indeed...
If you think that is logic, then I have bad news for you...
Mister Fids "Don't try to distract us with logic, in America EMOTIONAL over investment is what rules our country, reasoning, facts & proof have no place in our lives anymore..!"
Another way of stating it is; "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up".
I could care less about the debate about global warming. I would prefer we clean up our act for the sake of simply not making our world one big toilet bowl. Can we do that? Can we forget the global warming thing altogether and just say we all need cleaner air and oceans and more efficient ways to use energy?
Seems like we should be couting our lucky star that the recent massive CME didn't strike Earth directly, or we'd all be snail-mailing our discussion comments.
Lovely how they are saying that low solar activity will cause the Earth to cool but they refuse to admit that the high solar activity that occurred with the increase in temperatures didn't cause the Earth to warm up.
The new mantra of the warmists: If it cools it is natural, if it warms it is man's fault.
Noah and Nasa put out reports about 4 months ago stating that the sun was causing us to warm but no one listened.
C02 caused the great warming 55 million years ago when through natural tectonic forces allowed C02 and methane to enter the atmosphere over a period of 20,000 years- the PETM- this carbon forcing brought temperatures up 5-7 degrees
that same C02 now being brought up by humans- will do the same thing in 125 years- is the carbon from the past any different then that of today?
Did you miss this last heat wave?
Actually, yes.
I often envy the climate change deniers: It must be nice and comforting to be able to see the world through such simple eyes. While most of them could agree that covering the planet in a giant black blanket would warm it up, the fact that the blanket is made of gas seems to open the door to wishful thinking. I find it even more surprising that while they struggle to understand invisible gas, most of them eagerly cling to invisible friends.
Well my quirky friends: consider that there are may factors at play here, but to state it simply you should know that there is both a heat source (the sun) and a heated object (the earth). Further complicating things there is also a "blanket" of gas that we call the "atmosphere". If you thicken that "blanket" with gas that holds in heat better, then you warm the heated object (the earth).
You can try an experiment at home with a wool blanket, a heat lamp, and your head. If this whole warming thing still doesn't make sense, then please try the experiment under water - being certain to place both the heat lamp and your head in the water.
I doubt that ridicule, followed by a simple-minded example, should convince anyone of anything!
While I do not know that more-rapid climate change is not occurring (sorry for the double negative), I do not know that it is happening either. I am simply loath to spend trillions attempting to eliminate something that might not exist. Prove it exists, and contrary comments will cease.
I often envy the global warming alarmists. No matter what it does, if it is warmer it is CO2, if it is cooler it is CO2, if it is wetter it is CO2 and if it is drier it is CO2. The alarmists have everything figured out by blaming a trace gas that is necessary for all plant life on Earth. It must be nice and comforting to be able to see the world through such simple eyes. Changes in the Sun makes no difference. Changes in ocean currents make no difference. Changes in orbit or wobble makes no difference. Everything can be explained by a slight increase of CO2.
And mention to an alarmist that similar things have happened in Earth's past the alarmist is quick to say that it was natural back then (even increased CO2) but that this time without a shadow of a doubt it must be man's fault this time.
Spot on, economykiller! It MUST be mankind's fault because we're so damned powerful and all... What a bunch of hogwash. The alarmist's arguments are falling apart as their predictions for seal level rise fail to materialize.
Buy a good snow shovel.
Gavin Schmidt isn't an alarmist.
I wouldn't mind if we were saved from global warming, and the mindless idiotic behavior of imbeciles, who will sooner believe in the Easter Bunny than science, by solar phenomena and volcanic eruptions.
But I repeat what I have said in the past: global-warming nay-sayers, it doesn't matter what you think of Al Gore: you're going to get mighty hungry. A bushel of corn closed today at $7.55 1/2. That's more than twice normal. And no human is doing anything to make that happen. It's just that the "weather" (as that intellectual giant Michelle Bachmann calls it) is so bad that it's hard to raise corn. Chow down while you can!
And we're not all in the same leaky boat. I'm a farmer. I just sold 8000 bushels of corn for delivery out of the field at $6.16, again about twice the normal price--and YOU, dear friends, are going to pay! Stupidity, after a while, gets expensive.
Actually if you check, you will see that Corn prices have doubled not because of drought or crop failure, but the fact that Ethanol consumes more corn to create.
Corn is a perfect example of "Green Initiatives" gone rampant.
Science is exact. There isn't room for "guesses". The so-called environmental scientific community has been proven repeatedly wrong on predictions and has been proven to either use faulty models changed to prove the theory.
The British Royal Society has now moved away from supporting Global Warming as have many feverent supporters.
The 'green' biofuel that I really like isn't corn. It's the other stuff. Fish. So here the oceans are getting stressed because of over fishing and I thought it was because people were eating them. Nope. Getting ground up and made into biofuel. Stupidity will kill us all.
And then you get people like Point of Fact (oxymoron in that case) and Sokrates who are Global Warming, er, Climate Change fanbois. I hope to hell the place is warming up. I hate winter. I don't live on the coast. I think there are too many people on the planet. And I'm so old the world could end in ten years and I wouldn't be there to see it. So yeah, melt everything. Warmth feels good on my old bones.
Another .003%er heard from. Make sure that "wool blanket" covers just .003% of your skin. That would represent the percent CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nice try non-alarmist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Mean_Sea_Level.svg
And you can tack on another 30cm or so between the late 1800s and 1993.
That was going to be my point JohnCarter-428979. Point of Fact and Sokrates should sleep outside with a wool blanket that only covers .003% of their body. Then come back and tell us how that worked out for them.
GendoIkari here is a link you should check out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
TeamsterX00 above stated the British Royal Society as no longer supporting Climate Change. If you go to their website they're still supporting Climate Change. http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/ If your going to make a statement as fact, at least put in a link to your source. Oh, and while your at the British Royal Society's web site be sure to download their 'Climate change: a summary of the science' dated September 2010. Who knows, you might learn something!
Point of Fact...What happened to global warming?
"If you thicken that "blanket" with gas that holds in heat better, then you warm the heated object (the earth).If you thicken that "blanket" with gas that holds in heat better, then you warm the heated object (the earth)."
Could it be that the Sun's output has a bigger impact on our temp than other variables? If we are freezing are butts off in a couple of years, I guess we will know...
its not just the suns cycle... that is like saying water is wet...
The Mayans gave us the clues all we had to do is a little basic Geological and Astral-calculations to find out that Yellowstone's massive eruptions occur every 644,000 to 672,000 years which coincidentally is mathematically constant with a 28000 year galactic center pulse if you multiply that times 23-24 permutation of the received pulse, which puts us at that occurrence in a direct relational alignment with all our planets on the left or right of a direct path from Galactic Center (Massive Black Hole) with our sun in a direct clear path between galactic center and our planet at 644,000 to 672,000 years.
This can potentially causes a Magnification effect that cooks our planets Core...Through Enhanced Neutrino-Gamma Ray particles and possible Hawkin's radiation derived possibly from the black hole and our own sun..
More with predictions on page 2 of comments.
http://drewrichards2000.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/08/5793044-is-the-end-coming-but-they-dont-want-to-tell-us
Drew - some of what you are saying is correct, but the article overlooks the fact that scientists have said the earth's magnetic field is weakening...this is a cyclical event and contributes also to global warming by allowing more gamma rays into the earth's atmosphere. The earth's axis reverses itself every 500,000 years or so....it may be too late to do anything about global warming because other large countries are doing nothing and contributing mightily. I won't even bring up the Revelation and predictions of Jesus...no need to. We're talking about science and I don't think we can do much except try to live our lives as best as possible and contribute to the preservation of Mother Earth in our own ways.
The faux scientists are out to debunk climate change (formerly global warming). Anyone who as even glanced in passing at climate change research sees the correlation between increased carbon and increased global temps.
Then go tell NOAH and NASA that, they say the sun is causing us to warm and said it about 4 months ago. All reported on this news site. Since man only puts out about 3.5% of the CO2 right now it makes sense that something else is causing us to warm. Besides, no one can explain Mother Nature to a tee.
NOAH — The National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation
Ill take their word for it.
Shawn...if you are getting all your info "on this news site" then you need to step out and do more looking son.
I do, it's just most people rely on this site. I went to the NASA site and read up on it. I also use other internet sites for my info.
Duh--correlation does not mean causation. It's basic statistics. Get a math degree.
Perfect point SteveYo. The analogy my stats professor used to use to illustrate the difference between correlation and causality is you can find a high correlation between the number of people eating ice cream and hot weather. That doesn't mean that if more people eat ice cram that the weather will increse.
I'm not sure if 400 years of study of our Sun, which is about 4.57 billion years old, is enough to insure confidence about any results of said study over the long term!!!
I fully agree Barlow.
My first area of research was in solar studies. I've moved on, but I have some familiarity with the physics and the personalities involved.
There is a fairly large group of solar scientists who do not agree with the above announcement, myself included. In fact, I've put my money where my mouth is - I've wagered a tidy sum with a colleague that solar cycle 25 will be at least as large (as measured by the cumulative daily sunspot count) as is the current cycle.
Largely the same folks who have made the above predictions for Cycle 25 being quiescent stated a few years ago that the current cycle - #24 - would be somewhat stronger than the average. (Of course most readers of Cosmic Log know that the current cycle has been somewhat quieter than the norm, and is in fact the deepest solar minimum we've had in the past century.)
This group is, so far, zero for one in predicting the intensity of solar max.
We do not yet have a sufficient understanding of solar physics to make such a prediction.
I promise that I shall return to this column in 11 or so years to eat crow, or to share "I told you so". (I fully hope, Alan, that you will still be penning Cosmic Log at that time.)
I just realized that I can be first at something.
It will become a meme, and sweep the nation. Political discourse will be altered by it. Endless Newsvine comments will be penned yea and nay about it.
But I shall be the very first....
With my post above I have declared myself: I AM A SOLAR COOLING DENIER!!!
I shall now retreat to my observatory where I shall come up with appropriate conspiracy theories to support my position. Book deals and TV appearances are sure to follow.
Michael, Great All you have to do is study " mass defect" and weave it in with Entropy, and YOU got it lad :-))
I'm good with conspiracy theories Michael. Perhaps when you write the book about the myth of Solar Cooling we could collaborate. For instance, did you know that 80% of the top 2% of wage earners in America have a 73.8% chance of having more than 4 winter jackets? This group of extremely wealthy individuals meets annually, unofficially, and by invitation-only. It is nothing more than a policy discussion forum and social club, which only serves as a means to brainstorm, reach consensus, and create social cohesion within the power elite of North American and Western European nations, to better promote Atlantic free-market capitalism and its interests around the globe. They are called the Bildaniceberg Group.
Also, there is the underground pentagon bunker that houses an ice dragon that was captured in New Mexico in the late 40's and was not allowed to return to the center of the Sun until the New Squirrel Order is established in the first decades of this millenium.
And... the pies de resistance... we never landed on the moon. There is no moon. We, in fact, live on the interior surface of a spherical Earth which is hollow and the outer surface is molten and at the poles there are holes that lets in light which then is bent by diamonds that are suspended by licorice. Neil Armstrong and all the men who claim to have landed on the Moon were actually part of a top secret military organization known as Project Blue Pamphlet. The moon landing witnessed by millions on television was actually a group hallucination brought on by the excreted gas of a cosmic squid known as Ktlumunuluul.
Also, I'm having a sale on aluminum hats.
WHAT? There were actual temperature changes before there were automobiles and big industry all over the globa? But how can they explain that without pointing fingers and saying "Global Warming?"
And the liberal media and democrats told me that it was because of emissions that we have a warm climate? They lied? Say it aint so!!! I thought if the government told us something.....and the media reported it.....it had to be true. Oh what will I think now that no can tell me what to think???
Barlow-1919963
Yet the Global Warming crowd uses 250 years to base their assumptions on. Please notice all data during and before the "early Icea Age" is largely ignored by the Climate Change group.
Really appreciate the insight and the wager, Michael ... there are a lot of "long bets" that we'll have to keep track of (I think "humans to Mars" is one of them), but I trust you'll remind all of us about this one in 2021 ... when I'm sipping a gin-and-tonic at the beachfront retirement resort in Nevada ;-)
I fully agree with you Barlow. The amount of time that we've been observing the Sun is a very small blip on geologic timescales.
As far as whether it will rain or shine, even the weathermen still get the forecast wrong about half of the time for my area, which is statistically about the same as guessing.
Like he did with the British Royal Society alledged quote that they no longer support Climate Change, TeamsterX00 does it again. He states those saying Climate Change is real only use 250 years of weather history as the basis for their analysis. The British Antarctic Survey in conjunction with seven other European nations have over 800,000 years worth of Antartic Ice Cores which have been analzyed to determine 800,000 years worth of climate data. Check out their web site which also supports Climate Change by man: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//bas_research/science/climate/position-statement.php and their ice cores analysis: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
This is just conjecture on my part. As I understand it the ccurrent Solar Cycle (24) has been more quiescent and is on track to be the least active cycle since Solar Cycle 6 (ending in 1823). Even during this period of relative quiescence we have witnessed an increase in the average global temperature. If fact that global rate of change for those temperature increases has been escalating over the last decade, isn't it clear that there are factors beyond just Solar Cycle activity contributing to global temperature modulation. Therefore even if Solar Cycle 25 is even more quiet, that is not a certain predictor of a contraction in the global temperature rise.
Anyone see a fallacy in my conclusion?
You got my vote Reliant. All aces with me.
I have a question regarding the sun, that is a bit off topic to this article, but I can't find a direct answer anywhere. Bear in mind I am a novice in astronomy, so if the question makes you think "oh come on!', go easy. :)
Knowing what we know about a star and how elements are created, and that the heavier elements sink into the middle of the star according to how heavy it is, and that a giant star may eventually go super-nova and leave what we labeled a Black Hole in it's place, why is it that this center can't just be and even heavier element? One so compacted and heavy that its gravitational pull is enormous. A yet unknown element that we haven't seen because of gravity, but might play a part in explaining "Dark Matter"?
Wouldn't that flow easier in terms of understanding the cosmos than black holes?
Thank You
Tony Excellent and Yes, Yes and Yes, Take Metallic Hydrogen as an example many thought it impossible, and yet we know now that is not the case, Then a few years ago Neutron Stars where unknown they were " Invented" to fill in a Gap about Density" So yes what you say has a great deal of feasibility and it may well turn out to be so, that is the beauty of Science.
Gravity is still the Great Unknown what holds things together and allows Gravity to work could still be proven to be an " electromagnetic force"
Black Holes are NOT a single entity they can be Gravitation wells, they can be electromagnetic traps, they can be chemical whirlpools. so any one that States that Black Holes are a single entity has a " Black hole" where it should not be ;-)) I Like you am just a thinker, so lets keep on thinking
So much for 10-meter activity for a long while . . . .
Some of us can't do too much on 10-meter anyway...
Okay folks check this out: Somethings up, just last week the UN announced that they were coming up with a plan to help protect the electrical grid from massive solar flares expected in late 2012, early 2013. Before that it was a report about how our government is doing the same. Now we have a report that states that the flares might not be as strong. Can anyone say cover up.
Whether the world warms up or gets cooler, humans will adapt. The problem is that habitable parts of the Earth will change and parts that become unhabitable will require that population to migrate. Wouldn't that be ironic if the US became too cold and we had to migrate to Mexico, but they don't want us?
haha...yeah come to texas for the best x-country skiing and snowmobiling in the world.
Do you mean how the UN's IPCC report said that the World would have 10 million environmental Immigrants by 2005?
 Cliff Harris (the climatologist that is not really a climatologist) will be so glad to hear this!!
What would happen during the peak time of the solar flare?
How would the flare affect the green house gaseous and global warming effects?
The prediction of 2013 is closing the gap of Dec. 21st 2012. Hope that is just coincidence.
 I blame Bush for the anticipated cold weather!
Well if the planet does warm up and sea levels rise then maybe I'll start grilling my food with a solar/wind powered, saline/soundwave BBQ. Flame broiled without the coal and lighter fluid! Then maybe I'll check out all of the cool new real estate in Greenland.
Pin3Hot Look At my Photo do you see the word HOAX?
Now get yourself a Bowl put some water say half way up, mark it so you know where the level is/was then get yourself a lightweight saucer, fill it with ICE, and watch and see if the Level of the water IN the Bowl changes as the Ice in the Floating container IN the Bowl melts, if the level does not change, what is that an indicator of?
I read posts like yours and I despair over ever being able to halt America's chronic intellectual demolishment. I will attempt to explain this in the most simplistic terms I can manage. Please pay close attention:
Ice is less dense than water. That means that it occupies more volume of space than an equal mass of water. It is also the reason why ice floats in water.
Your precious experiment only work IF you begin the experiment with the ice already added to the water. The extra volume the ice occupies is not reflected in the level of the water because of the parts of the ice that are sticking up from the surface level of the water. When the ice cubes melt, the total volume of occupied space of the ice cubes will compress down to the area of the ice cubes which were originally submerged to begin with. Which results in your 'experiment'.
In order to properly perform the experiment you have to check your level before adding the ice. Then add the amount of ice you want (not one ice cube or even a few ice cubes but a large quantity of ice cubes so that they're stacked up one atop another far above water level as one would find in an existing landmass such as Greenland, et al.), wait for the ice to melt, and then check your level again. Not the result you were expecting, is it?
Even then the conversion factor is not perfect due to the imperfections in the ice cubes, such as air bubble pockets and the like.
Now...if after that very simple explanation, you can begin to understand that the issue is not a hoax, then congratulations and best wishes to you. But if you still wish to insist on believing the blather that melting ice will not cause water levels to rise, that's your choice and your prerogative, but don't expect others who know how to use their brains properly and who enjoy using their brains for their intended purposes to believe likewise. We tend to be highly resistant to intellectual demagoguery. Capiché?
LOL :-)) As YOU wish.. you mis the POint only because of your Prejudice,
Here what YOU missed ANY ice on Earth exerts Pressure on the OCEANS any Ice on LAND also exerts Pressure on Oceans because the Tectonic Plates FLOAT on a Magma so ALL pressures are " Hydraulic in nature and spread out across the Globe", As ANY Ice, weather it Protrudes above water level or NOT already has it " weight" on the Level its Melting does NOT affect the water Level, on LAND we have what is know as " earth rebound" that is as Pressure is changed the Land like a " sponge" also rebounds, Simple FACTS, but not designed to be consumed by " Simple Brains"
Thank you for the Discussion, have a great Day.
Wrong. Ice in oceans displace water, they do not put pressure on the oceans.
Yeah. What you forgot to mention is the fact that the last time there was a glacial event of sufficient magnitude to provoke isostacy, was the last glacial period which occurred in the last years of the Pleistocene, of which the worst was about 18,000 years ago. You also forgot to mention that the isostacy produced by that "ice age" is still currently underway and it will take another approximately 10,000 for our planet to finish equalizing the loss of pressure from that much ice. The itty-bitty amount of ice we now have when compared to the last glacial period and its affect on our tectonic plates currently? Negligible.
Anything else you forgot to mention? Plenty, but I'll refrain from abuse.
The sun is going to stop global warming? How do you predict an unexpected event? "The latest long-range space forecast predicts an unexpected drop in solar activity after the next peak".
Ah, good semantic point ... I'll fix that up. The findings that led the researchers to their prediction were unexpected.
economykiller wrote: "Lovely how they are saying that low solar activity will cause the Earth to cool but they refuse to admit that the high solar activity that occurred with the increase in temperatures didn't cause the Earth to warm up.
The new mantra of the warmists: If it cools it is natural, if it warms it is man's fault."
===================================================
How frustrating it is to us scientists when folks like you pick one part of one article and then assume they know it all and put "a new mantra" in scientists' mouths!
The little Ice Age cooling also was a time of increased volcanic emissions and it's not clear how much was caused by those emissions. What we do know today is that the max CO2 concentrations certainly for the past 420,000 and probably for the past 21,000,000 years is 294 ppm. Today it is 385 ppm. When you look at all the possible reasons for the increase, the smoking gun points at human activity.
Too bad you assume a tiny bit of information makes you such an expert you can disparage people who spent their life studying the issue and who hope to warn humanity of what they're doing to their children's futures.
Yes Mick..the dudes an idiot ! BUT, even idiots have opinions that must be heard.
Meh. If the planet warms up to where it was 65 million years ago when dinosaurs were thriving it would be just fine. All the ice on the planet could melt and it wouldn't kill us. Since The_Mick is a wanna be scientist he knows as well as anyone that we can't get the planet any warmer than nature has already and life not only survived the worst nature could throw at it but thrived.
Global Warming is nothing to be concerned about unless you live on the coast. There are too many people on the planet anyway. We need some culling.
There is no doubt the planet has been gradually warming over the past 100 years. Whats causing it is debatable, but I would err on the side of caution. Trying to reduce CO2 cannot hurt. If we have a major volcanic event with the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, you're really going to see the s... hit the fan. and in pretty short order. There will be crop failures world wide. At the start of the little ice age it rained for about 3 years straight - very little sucessful agricultural production for about 5 years, until people figured out what would grow. Lots of starvation in those 5 years and massive economic disruption.
I'm all for reducing pollution. But instead marching in circles with placards, "Stop Global Warming", science needs to simply tell people to stop polluting because it's slowly killing them. And that would be the truth.
OK The Mick as a "scientist" why don't you explain why you ignore the data in the Antarctic vostok ice cores. In case you are not familiar with this research...here's a link to a well written article on the subject
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
As a "scientist" I am sure you are aware that a single volcanic eruption emits more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of the non-naturally released CO2 mankind has ever added.
As a "scientist" I am sure you are aware that none of the "computer models" the "man made climate change" scientists used incorporated the effects of the sun as a variable. In fact they claim any effect the sun may have on global tempuratures is so miniscule it need not even be considered. Of course they have no data to back up that claim. Why would they bother to research it when they have already said the sun has nothing to do with changing global temperatures!
I am sure that as a "scientist" who has staked his reputation on the theory of man-made global warming being correct you will continue to ignore any data that contradicts that theory.
Models via computers for global warming come up with different scenarios
look to the ancient past- paleo climates- what what earth like when C02 levels where at 400ppm
it gives a far better critique- and shows us a far more clear of the future.
Climate models via the IPCC predicted that there would not be an ice free arctic in late summer till 'around 2060' that could now happen much earlier- perhaps by 2020.
The IPCC has bee correct thus far on the degree of warming- the A2' scenario- we are on a track for 3.5 degrees C by 2090- but others say that could occur by 2060.
Also the IPCC has been slow into 'positive feedback's- what happens at each stage of temperature- what will an ice free arctic mean to the remaining ice in Greenland- or how quick will CH4 (methane) rise add to warming.
dmac225 above states that computer models do not take into account solar activity, however if you go to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm which presents a history of climate computer modelling it clearly states that they have since the 1980's.
I hope these guys are wrong. I was kinda looking forward to no more snow and no more ice caps.
Ya know, when are 'they' going to admit they don't know what the hell is going on? You hear so much conflictiing crap it's patently obvious science is running around in circles like a Keystone Kop comedy. No wonder people are starting to doubt what's being said. It's so contradictory.
Scientists need to get together and agree to stop yelling Wolf at every turn. When something really is up that could threaten life's existance on this rock no one will listen.
So, STFU until you know for certain that the sky is falling. Don't pretend you know what's going on when you know that you don't have all the information to make an informed decision. And someone go take that Nobel Prize back from Al 'The Used Car Salesman' Gore before he sells it.
Actually the CO2 level is 394+ as of April 2011.
Stephen
what was the earth's climate like last when C02 levels where this high sustained?
Peter
We only have the archeologic records and ice core date from every 100,000 years for the last 650,000 years from which to speculate upon what the Earth's climate may have been.Vostok ice cores reveal that the Earth's global temperature has been fluctuating for centuries and has only once briefly exceeded the maximum +12C difference (increase) from the end of the last glacial period. It then took another dip, as we are currently sitting around -1.35C below this +12C difference. However what these patterns do show is that, regardless of the elevated level of greenhouse gas concentration (and it it very high at the end of every naturally re-occuring warming trend), once the global temperature is maintained above +12C difference from the last glacial period, the planet will spiral into global cooling trend towards the next "Ice Age" (hence, the understanding of the term 'glacial cycle').
What we do know from this data is that as thee temperature increases so does the concentration of greenhouse gases. At cooler temperature these greenhouse gases are leached into the ocean and ground, but as the global temperature increases these greenhouse gases are slowly purged to add to the overall level of increasing greenhouse gases. Therefore logic would dictate that while higher CO2 level are indicative of a warmer global climate, it is not the CO2 levels that are causing the global temperature to increase. While AGWers would have you believe that we are promoting a runaway climate change, no scientist will back this assertion. So as high as CO2 level may be now, we were only hovering at around a +10.65C difference as of June, 2010 (which was the hottest recorded month since the last "Little Ice Age"). This further demonstrates that that large scale events, like the rate of sun spots have a greater effect than the levels of greenhouse gases on the Earth's global climate.
First off - I like the picture of the June 7th eruption (very poignant). Talk about living history - no one has seen this type of solar eruptions ever.
Secondly, as I read through some of these comments, I see that many are still laboring under the belief that our current cycle of global warming is purely the cause of the abundance of manmade greenhouse gases. With all the evidence provided for re-occuring glacial cycles to support the natural trend towards global warming, I just don't see how others put so much weigh on this low percentage increase of greenhouse gas infusion. Even water vapor excess has more to due with foster global warmth than greenhouse gas infusion.
Thirdly a very sound correlation has already been demonstrated between sun spot solar cycles and weathering, albeit its affects on a planetary scale have not been witnessed since the "Little Ice Age." Out of the 5 considered causes of the "Little Ice Age"(short-term cooling period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860), to which would you consider as the most viable? Per one of the sources that I have considered - http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2005/20051128.htm the sunspots theory ranks as the highest probable cause.
Lastly - While the average land-ocean global temperature variation continues to rise slowly, the current rate of rising global temperature variations is actually declining within the last decade. Vostok ice cores reveal that the Earth's global temperature has been fluctuating for centuries and has only once briefly exceeded the maximum +12C difference (increase) from the end of the last glacial period. It then took another dip, as we are currently sitting around -1.35C below this +12C difference. However what these patterns do show is that, regardless of the elevated level of greenhouse gas concentration (and it it very high at the end of every naturally re-occuring warming trend), once the global temperature is maintained above +12C difference from the last glacial period, the planet will spiral into global cooling trend towards the next "Ice Age" (hence, the understanding of the glacial cycle).
And while AGWers would have you believe that we are promoting a runaway climate change, no scientist will back this assertion. So as high as CO2 level may be, we were only hovering at around a +10.65C difference as of June, 2010 (which was the hottest recorded month since the last "Little Ice Age").
Another thing that is never pointed out is that the climate naturally cycles towards a warmer peak with each small cool to warm cycle. Each warm cycle is a little warmer than the last. And looking at the past data gleened from core samples planet wide there is a huge peak of CO2 and then the bottom quickly falls out. I've yet to see anyone explain why that happens. If you want a global catastrophy that will hand you a nice one.
Per your statement - " And looking at the past data gleened from core samples planet wide there is a huge peak of CO2 and then the bottom quickly falls out. I've yet to see anyone explain why that happens."
While this pattern appears to demonstrate a 'cause and effect' relative to the elevated CO2 levels, most non-AGW scientists believe this effect (i.e. the bottom falls out) is more representeative of the global warming and resulting increase in water vapor. What these scientists tell us from this data is that as thee temperature increases so does the concentration of greenhouse gases. At cooler temperature these greenhouse gases are leached into the ocean and ground, but as the global temperature increases these greenhouse gases are slowly purged to add to the overall level of increasing greenhouse gases. Therefore logic would dictate that while higher CO2 level are indicative of a warmer global climate, it is not the CO2 levels that are causing the global temperature to increase. While AGWers would have you believe that we are promoting a runaway climate change, no scientist will back this assertion. So as high as CO2 level may be now, we were only hovering at around a +10.65C difference as of June, 2010 (which was the hottest recorded month since the last "Little Ice Age").
The occurrence of the "Little Ice Age" bears out this expectation in that the levels of CO2 dropped during this cooler time period of abnormally low to non-existent sun spots. A very sound correlation has already been demonstrated between sun spot solar cycles and weathering, albeit its affects on a planetary scale have not been witnessed since the "Little Ice Age." Out of the 5 considered causes of the "Little Ice Age"(short-term cooling period from A.D. 1400 to about A.D. 1860), to which would you consider as the most viable? Per one of the sources that I have considered - http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2005/20051128.htm the sunspots theory ranks as the highest probable cause.
Vostok ice cores reveal that the Earth's global temperature has been fluctuating for centuries and has only once briefly exceeded the maximum +12C difference (increase) from the end of the last glacial period. It then took another dip, as we are currently sitting around -1.35C below this +12C difference. However what these patterns do show is that, regardless of the elevated level of greenhouse gas concentration (and it it very high at the end of every naturally re-occuring warming trend), once the global temperature is maintained above +12C difference from the last glacial period, the planet will spiral into global cooling trend towards the next "Ice Age" (hence, the understanding of the glacial cycle). Therefore logic would dictate that once the global climate maintains this +12C difference (increase) from the last global 'Ice Age', then we can expect to slowly spiral back into a more permanent cooling condition toward the next global "Ice Age."
Flatulence is everywhere.