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:
Can't post a link google tallblokes talkshop for more info
Co2 will continue to rise- and be the dominant force in our climate in the foreseeable future.
Sunspot activity has been at a minimum for years- and we still see significant warming.
C02 as it passes 400ppm in 2015 or 2016- will usher in the highest levels in over 20 million years- that kind of level will make any sunspot level- low or high not a factor- the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is becoming too elevated for sunspots to make any kind of difference.
Once again...sunspots are areas that are cooler than the surrounding areas.
Does that mean the CO2 levels were higher 20 million years ago?
Mike
C02 caused the PETM 55 million years ago- a great warming event that took 20,000 years- when through slow tectonic forces huge amounts of C02 and Ch4 entered the atmosphere.
That same carbon that sank long ago into sinks (we have cooled ever since) is now being entered into the atmosphere again- by us- at 10 times the rate! So we will see C02 and CH4 levels rise to over 900ppm- in 100 years- which took 20,000 years during the PETM.
I'm not sure, what are we arguing here? That the sun controls our earth temperatures more than greenhouse gasses? Duh...of course.
But why argue? Shall we ignore the countless ways we are manipulated into living in a dirty, polluted and corrupt environment?
Our DNA, animals, morals, air, water, food supply...the fundamentals of life itself have all been pillaged and practically destroyed by the desire for profit. Maybe already irreversibly so.
And your petty arguments aren't helping. OK, so let's say there is no global warming. We've started and continue with 100 other ways that humanity can be harmed or destroyed.
Do you really need to hear that global warming isn't true? Why? So we can continue, blindly, into our self-created abyss, without a worry or a care.
A billion people are starving, and billions more will be soon. We have the technology to stop it. But you, the anti-environmentalists, prefer to feast on your own selfish spoils, than give a moments thought to the many crises affecting the Earth. It is your selfishness that got us here. And it is your selfishness that keeps us here.
Good grief Charlie Brown. People are so easily confused and manipulated. Let's try to stay focused on WHAT REALLY MATTERS.
Bman What seems to be missed, is that we humans BURN or do chemical Hybrids, that " nature" does not.. here is a simple example " Forest fires are 100% natural ALL smoke and carbons created in a forest fire are naturally reusable", Now Compare that with a Fire in say a " High combustion stove" the Fire is hotter, the chemicals created in the HOTTER flames are " Not produced in nature at the same rate" there fore we are " stressing the System", Another example is High temperature waste disposal, Less smoke true, BUT it generates Chemicals and even gases, that are well beyond what the " natural environment" would have ever produced, and hence once again we are stressing what is " natural" , Same as with our Bodies,and say Sugar, a little, no problem, some more, diabetes, a little more serious liver issues.
So what seems OK, in reality is " pushing the environment to the brink" see what i said a few weeks ago about " Wind Turbines in " Rivers of wind"" a discussion that so many misunderstood.
The one clear truth is that we've been lied to by the corporate controlled media and government for so long it's hard to determine what is fact. Scientists are paid by either government grants or their corporate employers.
The only way to know what is going to happen is to wait until it happens. Until then it's all just speculation.
A mini ice age? As someone who lives in SE Texas near the Gulf Coast, I have to say that I would definitely welcome that. We might even end up having real *seasons* here... Right now, we have 9 months of summer and then 3 months of confused weather (summer one day, winter the next, back to summer the day after)...
Does this mean that Al Gore has to give all of the money back from his GLOBAL WARMING book deal?
I'm so glad to see so many of you denouncing humans as the cause of this global warming scam. I've been telling people for years it was based on volcanoes and solar activity but all sorts of nature loving people who never went to college for sciences (like myself) never believed me. I hope this makes it on the television news for the next few days so that extreme liberal media can feel pretty stupid for making people paranoid aobut global warming.
"All science is man's search for GOD." Keep looking folks, HE'S only a Prayer away. The ONE who made it All, controls it All. And in the end, it is All For HIS Glory!
Solar Scientist Judith Lean of NASA reacted to yesterday's solar news thusly:
[This] "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat — and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade,"
Now, doesn't that mean Judith Lean of NASA believes the solar effect is about equal to the co2 effect in strength?
Not really ... the increase in CO2 in an 8-year period would be about 15ppm. Even if you cancelled that effect, there would still be all the accumulated CO2 since the Industrial Revolution (now over 100ppm increase above the pre-industrial 280ppm level). And if something isn't done to stop it, a further increase of 150 to 200ppm is likely in this century.
Judy works for the U.S. Navy (but NASA would love to have her). She is also a member of the National Academy of Science, an honour bestowed on the best U.S. scientists.
You may be interested, Rog, in what Judy says here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOMsQcEN1Bg
So no, she does not seem to believe that the solar effect is about equal to the impact of CO2.
Whew...Glad to see that human pollution is going to save us from the next Ice Age!
lets see: people cause global warming, but the sun causes global cooling..... makes perfect sense to me....
Partially conflicting.
When I was in college way back in the early 80’s I learned that one theory was we should be on the threshold of the next ice age, and that humans may have pushed this off when the industrial revolution was started and we put tons of smoke into the air. However this was also pointed out that maybe the very act of warming up causes an ice age. By heating the planet some, evaporation goes up and more water vapor in the air leads to more reflected sun and cooler weather.
However it all ends up we can not deny the fact that the planet is changing. We can try and legislate it away but I do not think nature listens to politicians.
This news about the sun is part of this change as well.
The simple face is it is all educated guessing. Well some people do not have the education to make good guesses but hay anyone can do that these days.
I was listening yes, CO2 has 10 times the forcing. If thats the case, then why are volcanic eruptions linked to global cooling. Every year volcanic eruptions account for 9 times the amount of CO2 put in the air than by fossil fuels. So, if CO2 comes from a car, it causes heating, if CO2 comes from a volcano, i causes cooling. Please, these "scientists" have me confused. "it warms the earth before it cools it and the cooling creates the warming and the damn SUV's just have to go!" Id give them another few billion for their research!
Your confusion is based on the slippery logic promoted by the AGWers for the presented data from the IPCC. While there is much talk about a nuclear winter or a volcanic winter, these are short term effects compared to Climate Change. What the evidence shows is that it is not the increased levels of CO2 driving temperature change, but quite the reverse.
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.
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 representative 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.
We are at the end of a 100,000 years interglacial cycle. Based on the recorded pattern of glacial-interglacial climate periods, there is an expectation that the naturally occuring global warming should reached approximately +12C temperature difference (increase) from the end of the last glacial cycle. In fact in the last few centuries we have briefly exceeded this +12C difference, but then the global temperature took a +2C dip. We are currently hovering around +10.50 in April, 2011, and will probably spike toward +10.65C difference in June, 2011 (as similar to June, 2010, which was the hottest recorded month).
Since we have yet to exceed this glacial-interglacial benchmark of +12C difference, then how can this be attributed to anything but naturally occuring climate change events ? How is it that the AGW model is taking credit for something that should be happening now naturally ? The AGW model is falling apart and will continue to fall apart with each decade of new data.
Volcanic eruptions produce temporary cooling due to particulates (which block sunlight), not CO2. I'm fairly certain your "9 times" figure is exaggerated or only applies to extreme cases, but in any event volcanic CO2 emissions are part of the natural balanced carbon cycle, whereas burning fossil fuels throws the natural cycle out of balance, which is why atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 280 to 390 ppm.
They say there is no link, but half the article talks about the maurader minimum and how it was linked to a global "little ice age" I suppose they would say that it doesnt matter, because that would debunk their "go green" whining and prove that the universe doesnt give a crap about what us little humans do on earth, the earth will survive us by millions of years.
"The linkage between solar activity and climate change is still a matter of scientific debate".....yet, we are so certain that MAN is causing climate change....as opposed to that gigantic fireball we're circling.
I think one of the most interesting facts here, that seems to have been missed, is that as the Earth starts to cool there is an increase in volcanic activity. For which therefore leads further into cooling due to the fact that the sun cannot penetrate the gas in the atmosphere to keep the earth properly heated to sustain life of any kind. Is this a way for the earth to try to keep it's outter temperature up, but has an actual negative effect? Hence Ice Age! In the end, mother nature will do what she wants, just take a look at ALL of the natural disasters occuring around the Earth in the past 5-10 years, for which were not small by any means!
Per your statement - " the Earth starts to cool there is an increase in volcanic activity."
I believe while true for the short term, this fact may be confusing in terms of the overall condition of Climate Change. While there is much talk about a nuclear winter or a volcanic winter, these are short term effects compared to Climate Change. What the evidence shows is that it is not the increased levels of CO2 driving temperature change, but quite the reverse.
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.
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 representative 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.
We are at the end of a 100,000 years interglacial cycle. Based on the recorded pattern of glacial-interglacial climate periods, there is an expectation that the naturally occuring global warming should reached approximately +12C temperature difference (increase) from the end of the last glacial cycle. In fact in the last few centuries we have briefly exceeded this +12C difference, but then the global temperature took a +2C dip. We are currently hovering around +10.50 in April, 2011, and will probably spike toward +10.65C difference in June, 2011 (as similar to June, 2010, which was the hottest recorded month).
Since we have yet to exceed this glacial-interglacial benchmark of +12C difference, then how can this be attributed to anything but naturally occuring climate change events ? How is it that the AGW model is taking credit for something that should be happening now naturally ? The AGW model is falling apart and will continue to fall apart with each decade of new data.
There hasn't been a warming trend in the past decade.
Prof. Ben WIllson is correct in respect to short-term data. Summer temperatures have been gauged against 1998. In fact, the rate of increased temperature variation has slowed to an annual average rise of about +0.0165C (June - global combined ocean & land surface temperature), fluctuating from +0.4C to +0.77C, for the last 15 years. This fluctuation does NOT represent consecutively warmer years, but rather a random scattering of warmer and cooler years.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=6&submitted=Get+Report
In fact, it appears that changes (increases) in temperature variations have been relatively stagnating (little change) for about the last 30 years, while the greenhouse gas concentrations have steadily risen without any period of such stagnation for the last 60 to 100 years. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I'll bet John Edwards is paying attention. He can start his own "Al Gore tour" promoting the danagers of a new Ice Age coming and make millions of dollars.
Actually my confusion is based soely on the claims of the media and the so-called scientists telling us its all about cow farts and human activity. Of the research I have done, I have yet to see any research that makes any sense or prove a thing. Researchers went to Antarctica to test for carbon deposits on the sea floor, this was supposed to "prove" that man made pollution was causing global warming. After millions of dollars were spent on a three year experiment paid for by US Taxpayers, the conclusion was "its just not happening". If they want to make a case for it, they should stick to a story. Does CO2 in the atomosphere create global warming? Is it the balance or inbalance of greenhouse gasses that create global warming? Is it just the damn sun? Is it methane from cow farts? Lets see some real facts before we spend another dime on a social program called science.
Bottom line is that science is not a consensus. The global warming advocates and opponents can neither one PROVE scientifically that their THEORY is correct. They can show correlations but not causation...yes, both sides can do this with equal vigor. Saying I have more scientists that agree with me so we are right is simply nonsense. If that's the case then the sun is still circling the Earth and that Earth is in fact flat (or is it really Discworld?)
The climate changes. We are terrible at predicting weather because the atmosphere and the factors which affect it are so complex but you honestly believe we can reliably predict climate hundreds of years in the future when the factors affecting climate are even more complex? Seriously?
I am completely in favor of research into understanding the climate (and weather) so that we can begin to understand the actual causative factors which result in various changes and maybe we can someday make actual predictions. What I vehemently oppose however is the commercialization (and the trillions of dollars being spent) of trying to change behavior in order to prevent a theoretical which is VERY far from being proven. That is not the same as saying I oppose efforts to reduce pollution. We have scientifically PROVEN that pollution does harm and we can actually do something about it and we have been. But climate "change"? Beyond proving that the climate does change we have only theory and hypothesis.
The confusion between weather and climate is very common, but according to the basic laws of thermodynamics, if you add heat to a system (greenhouse gases trap heat that would otherwise escape into space), it will get warmer unless heat is being removed somewhere else. So unless you're counting on the solar cooling being a lot more than the scientists expect, or some other unlikely event like a big increase in cloud cover, the global average temperature will continue to increase in the years ahead until CO2 emissions are greatly reduced.
"May contribute to climate change," Frank?
I have news for you, Frank, no Sun, no climate.
I dunno why, but a small ice age excites me. Maybe we'll make bonfires, say stories and go to sleep with scarlet glowing fireplaces crackling our minds to peace, as the heat slowly creeps into the bedroom. Anyone like that?
The sun causes ALL weather - and ALL climate change. These quacks are really that dumb that they don't think the SUN has anything to do with our weather? Is cracker jack handing out free Diplomas?
They also said they have been studying the sun for 400 years. Let me see the films, the pictures, the actual data. For every year they claim to have data I can assure you they have next to nothing. Like there is 400 years of satellite data and pictures..... bunch of idiot liars. These people don't know anything except how to steal money. Wonder why our economy is in the dumps - its because we pay 'climate scientists'. These people would be better suited to sweeping streets and emptying trashcans for minimum wage.
Not Cracker Jack but closeout degrees from Big Lots.