Grand Solar Minimum

[Solar Cycles]

So we have.

"The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode."

Now the first question is does easterbrook realise that the 2007-2008 cooling was down to a moderate La Nina.?

If he does then he's being delibrate in creating a false impression.

If he doesn't then he bl00dy well should do. ! as it's the main driver of short term global temperature changes. !

Second this was published in Dec 08, why did he not say that global temperatures have actually been rising during 2008-2009 (despite no postive ENSO) and not falling which is what he said. (see attached which has all the major temperature records).

"Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. "

Again why has he NOT digged a little and discovered that although there was a good temp/PDO correlation, there certainly isn't at the moment and no reason to suggest there will be going forward.!.

Finally

"The sun's recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it."

An easy thing to claim but how on earth has he come up with that conclusion.

"The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. "Global warming" (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!"

Why say this ?, without any justification.

I would be gobsmacked if this passed peer review validation as it is both wrong and misleading. I am not trying to be too defensive(although I know I am), but this "work" is a series of unconnected cooling events, with a bit of icing and a huge leap of faith..

I could say more, but I 'll wait for now.

Iceberg it only takes one scientist to prove a theory wrong! As for peer reviewed, well a committee report is not evidence itself. Can you name any observations that show that CO2 causes significant warming at it's current levels?

[Iceberg]

It might only take one scientist but this if he's this bias and misleading at this stage the chances are it won't be Mr easterbrook.

As to CO2 I will leave that as this thread seems to be to discuss Mr Easterbrooks contributions rather than a generic CO2 arguement

Rather than just slate him, I've tried to pick out important assertions and show where they are wrong.

[jethro]

The title of this thread is Grand Solar Minimum. I started it as a response to NASA now accepted the behaviour of the Sun has changed, in comparison to recent minimums.

There are lots of Solar theories and predictions out there from the likes of Archibald, Landscheit etc - these have been predicting for some time that we were heading for a Grand Minimum. NASA have clung limpet like to Hathaway's prediction of a mega cycle 24, despite clear indications that he was wrong; even Hathaway predicted a quiet cycle 25 to follow, have both he and NASA been caught on the hop, has the Sun decided to take a long nap? What are the implications for us all if we are heading into another Grand Minimum?

There are loads of other threads to discuss whether or not AGW is real and happening in a back garden near you, please, please can this thread be kept clear of that issue?

Here's another prediction for an impending Grand Minimum, it's been around for a while but is perhaps, a little less well known.

http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html

As to CO2 I will leave that as this thread seems to be to discuss Mr Easterbrooks contributions rather than a generic CO2 arguement

NO IT ISN'T! This thread is to discuss Grand Solar Minimum, the clue is in the title.

[Methuselah]

Iceberg it only takes one scientist to prove a theory wrong! As for peer reviewed, well a committee report is not evidence itself. Can you name any observations that show that CO2 causes significant warming at it's current levels?

No, SC. I think it takes observation to prove a theory wrong. And, I don't think wild speculation counts as observation? AGW theory is at least built upon the fact that the globe has indeed warmed during recent history...

If, as has so often been claimed, the next 50 years see sustained cooling - observation will challenge it.

[jethro]

[Essan]

So all the predictions about the end of the world in 2012 due to excessive solar activity are wrong?

As Jethro rightly says, a number of people for a number of years have been predicting a period of reduced solar activity and current observations suggest that if trends continue they may be proved correct.

In turn this will at least counter and anthropogenic warming and quite possibly lead to some moderate cooling. We cannot claim beyond that because we have no reference for comparison.

Of course, if this does happen then we can only guess the horrors of the sudden rapid warming that might occur afterwards ......

Edited March 10, 2009 by Essan

[Solar Cycles]

So all the predictions about the end of the world in 2012 due to excessive solar activity are wrong?

As Jethro rightly says, a number of people for a number of years have been predicting a period of reduced solar activity and current observations suggest that if trends continue they may be proved correct.

In turn this will at least counter and anthropogenic warming and quite possibly lead to some moderate cooling. We cannot claim beyond that because we have no reference for comparison.

Of course, if this does happen then we can only guess the horrors of the sudden rapid warming that might occur afterwards ......

Yes but it won't have anything to do with extra CO2 That will be down to the sun AGAIN!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

So we have.

"The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode."

Now the first question is does easterbrook realise that the 2007-2008 cooling was down to a moderate La Nina.?

If he does then he's being delibrate in creating a false impression.

If he doesn't then he bl00dy well should do. ! as it's the main driver of short term global temperature changes. !

I'll pick up on this point. Yes strictly speaking he is taking La Nina into account. Bang on cue to Landscheidts predictions in Feb 2007 the perturbation cycle changed from El Nino dominance to La Nina dominance. Remember, to NASA's utter 'surprise' the El Nino suddenly died then and La Nina conditions developed, but it was no surprise to many who follow and believe in solar cycles. This is NOT the PDO and is a seperate cycle BUT it is a solar cycle of approx 36 years. So the cooling is not due to the La Nina, its due to on of the solar cycles.

This approaching Grand Minima, Gleissberg Minimum, is forecast to have two 'bottoms', one in cycle 25 and then another around cycle 27 so it could be of Dalton Minima size at least. The way 24 is behaving I think a Maunder style is approaching.

BFTP [back for a rare post]

Edited March 10, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Essan]

Yes but it won't have anything to do with extra CO2 That will be down to the sun AGAIN!

It'll be down to the sun amplifying rather than masking other factors. Of course, other natural cycles will also have an effect. But if they all go warm at the same time .......

And that still leaves the big, big question: if CO2 (or other 'greenhouse gases') is not causing any warming, why not! Answer that one (assuming its true) and you have a place in the history books alongside all the greatest geologists and astrophysicists

Edited March 10, 2009 by Essan

[jethro]

And what does CO2and warming have to do with Grand minima?

Does anyone want to discuss the possibility of such an occurrence? I won't take offence, if this subject is dull, not interesting then say so, I'll happily ask for it to be closed. That's not a hissy fit in the making, it's simply that the idea of a separate thread was to keep it separate; if you'd all rather lump the Sun's influence into the general is/isn't, will/won't, did/didn't then this thread is a bit pointless.

Separate thread or not?

[Solar Cycles]

It'll be down to the sun amplifying rather than masking other factors. Of course, other natural cycles will also have an effect. But if they all go warm at the same time .......

And that still leaves the big, big question: if CO2 (or other 'greenhouse gases') is not causing any warming, why not! Answer that one (assuming its true) and you have a place in the history books alongside all the greatest geologists and astrophysicists

The carbon already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light that it can. CO2 only soaks up it's favourite wavelengths of light and it's close to saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and does keep us warm, but it's already reached it's peak performance. Throwing more carbon up there means most of the extra gas are redundant molecules. They manage to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to their favourite bands but they can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelenghts!

And what does CO2and warming have to do with Grand minima?

Does anyone want to discuss the possibility of such an occurrence? I won't take offence, if this subject is dull, not interesting then say so, I'll happily ask for it to be closed. That's not a hissy fit in the making, it's simply that the idea of a separate thread was to keep it separate; if you'd all rather lump the Sun's influence into the general is/isn't, will/won't, did/didn't then this thread is a bit pointless.

Separate thread or not?

Really sorry Jethro, your right we have sidetracked the issue.

[MR EXTREMES]

im glad to see that nasa have atlast admitted the sun is ready to do its thing.

as for a grand minima of coarse id say its long overdue infact it would not suprise me if a big ice age is in the pipeline for the future well who knows because not a single human on this planet knows.

its clear to see that solar activity has a effect on not only our temps but climate aswell although it takes time for things to take effect,

but then again it could also go the oposite way the sun could just burst into life and we could all fry.

but minimum does at the moment look the most likely.

and as for man made global warming this will mean nothing if this outlook does become fact get ya woolies ready or i should say bring back mammoth fur lol.

but overall intresting times ahead.

and i wonder how many years it takes for a grand minimum to ice age ?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The carbon already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light that it can. CO2 only soaks up it's favourite wavelengths of light and it's close to saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and does keep us warm, but it's already reached it's peak performance. Throwing more carbon up there means most of the extra gas are redundant molecules. They manage to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to their favourite bands but they can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelenghts!

There is a retort to this now circling that CO2 molecules absorb and then reemit these wavelengths, which can then go on to be absorbed and reemitted by other CO2 molecules nearby, until it eventually finds its mazey way out of the atmosphere.

So, these geniuses say, the path a photon will take out of an atmosphere densely packed with CO2 molecules will be much longer than the path it would take in an atmosphere less densely packed with CO2 molecules.

Hence increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the time a photon spends in the atmosphere which means increased warming.

It's not, they say, like painting a white wall 11 times. It is the difference between a car having to stop at 12 red lights and a car that is able to speed through 12 green lights. Or, the difference between one blanket and four.

On the provided reasoning though we also would be able to solve all our energy needs by bombarding a box extremely densely filled with CO2 gas with the right frequency of light - it will stay hot forever. The objection commits the fallacy of perpetual motion.

[Gray-Wolf]

On the provided reasoning though we also would be able to solve all our energy needs by bombarding a box extremely densely filled with CO2 gas with the right frequency of light - it will stay hot forever. The objection commits the fallacy of perpetual motion.

How's about taking just one of those atoms ........and splitting it????

Edited March 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

And what does CO2and warming have to do with Grand minima?

Does anyone want to discuss the possibility of such an occurrence? I won't take offence, if this subject is dull, not interesting then say so, I'll happily ask for it to be closed. That's not a hissy fit in the making, it's simply that the idea of a separate thread was to keep it separate; if you'd all rather lump the Sun's influence into the general is/isn't, will/won't, did/didn't then this thread is a bit pointless.

Separate thread or not?

Nobody has a clue Jethro. So what if the sun has a slight variance over periods from as short as a second to as long as a (few) billion years? It (the sun) only affects the weather when it isn't cloudy, and when climate is the effect of cloudiness over periods of greater than thirty years, the sun really has no part to play at all. In places like the central Sahara, the climate hasn't changed for a long time - the diurnal changes are greater than the annual ones. It's probably the same in other parts of the world that have constant cloud cover, except the diurnal range is less pronounced. If this was "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" I'd suggest "ask an axolotl".

[Gray-Wolf]

. In places like the central Sahara, the climate hasn't changed for a long time - the diurnal changes are greater than the annual ones.

Surely that is relative Chris???

The rock art in the central Sahara shows giraffe and Hippopotamus....not there now are they?

Let's not get into the weathering on the Sphinx......

[Chris Knight]

Surely that is relative Chris???

The rock art in the central Sahara shows giraffe and Hippopotamus....not there now are they?

Let's not get into the weathering on the Sphinx......

...but no axolotls?

I said a long time - not how long. Did the animal grafitti have dates?

Edited March 10, 2009 by Chris Knight

[laserguy]

So all the predictions about the end of the world in 2012 due to excessive solar activity are wrong?

Flip that over:

"So all the other predictions about the end of the world in 2012 due to a lack of solar activity are right"?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Surely that is relative Chris???

The rock art in the central Sahara shows giraffe and Hippopotamus....not there now are they?

Let's not get into the weathering on the Sphinx......

Which was built, carved etc around 10,000 BC... 12,000 years ago...

We also know that the area around the giza plateau was green and fertile in the transition from the last ice age to the current climate. I'm not sure a. what point your trying to make, b. why it's apparently so amusing and c. what the hell it has to do with the title of the thread. Stop hi-jacking them!!

[Essan]

The carbon already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light that it can. CO2 only soaks up it's favourite wavelengths of light and it's close to saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and does keep us warm, but it's already reached it's peak performance.

Faint Young Earth Paradox Solve that without invoking the greenhouse effect (and thus overturning the current paradigm) and you're famous (in geological circles, anyway)

Predictions of warming due to increased GHGs are based on geological record. Solar activity cannot explain the geological record. If not GHGs then what? Or is the sun not what we think it is? In which case your over-turning astrophycial paradigms and going to be equally famous.

Surely that is relative Chris???

The rock art in the central Sahara shows giraffe and Hippopotamus....not there now are they?

Desertification (or re-desertification - it was even more arid during the last ice age) of the Sahara was primarily caused by a change in the milkovitch cycles affecting N Hemisphere insolation which in turn affected climate systems. These resulted in less rainfall which in turn caused the vegetation to die off - all gradual until a tipping point was reached and it turned quickly from Savannah to desert. This tipping point was reached around 5,500 years ago and may istelf have then had further impacts on global climates. Including the devopment of Atlantic hurricanes - so much is interconnected, a reason which should be concerned baout similar changes because caused by human activity today. SE Asia, Africa and S AMerica being of primary concern. A butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon may not casue a hurricane. But a stand of rainforest burning in Africa might.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Essan

[jethro]

Ok folks, I'm a patient person, tolerant, accepting, blah, blah, blah; but everyone has their limitations.

This thread is about GRAND SOLAR MINIMA - in particular the forecast/expected arrival of one, perhaps beginning with cycle 24; NASA is concerned enough about the lack of sunspots to throw 1.8 million into research.

This thread IS NOT, I repeat NOT about past ice ages, CO2, AGW, antiquities (foreign or otherwise), splitting of atoms, energy conservation, aunt Gertrude's bunions or Hansen's hemorrhoids. There are 4 pages in this section, roughly 70 different threads, I'm certain all these can be discussed endlessly in any of those. So may I politely ask, that if you choose to discuss these things, in fact discuss anything other than GRAND SOLAR MINIMA, that you bog off into the appropriate thread.

[mettalfabrik]

been following this on the solar activity thread since 2006 when the mimimum was expected to bottom out ,and with every prediction thats come since, coupled with the jovian theory i believe we are entering a very quiet sun phase, i do believe this will have an impact on the climate but i am no expert ,and in anycase minima can last up to 15 years if you look at past records,whatever it is attracting attention in the right places now and the data suggests this MAY be the case, lets see how many times the prediction for solar max is adjusted between now and this time next year then perhaps there may be something else to worry about

bog off! i like it, you,ve got a way with words jethro lol

Edited March 10, 2009 by blackdown

[Methuselah]

The carbon already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light that it can. CO2 only soaks up it's favourite wavelengths of light and it's close to saturation point. The natural greenhouse effect is real, and does keep us warm, but it's already reached it's peak performance. Throwing more carbon up there means most of the extra gas are redundant molecules. They manage to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to their favourite bands but they can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelenghts!

Really sorry Jethro, your right we have sidetracked the issue.

You are right about the last bit SC, but the first paragraph is pure conjecture if not nonsense...What's more, it's impossible to prove otherwise...It's the 'favourite bands' that are the problem...Do I smell an asymtote?? (sp?)

Needless to say, and it is relevant to the posited Solar Minimum: IF the globe does indeed cool (La Nina excepted), much received wisdom will need to change?

[laserguy]

This,taken from the marvellous 'Greenie Watch' website is interesting and (bear with it),is sufficiently on-topic to spare me from Jethro's wrath... I hope.

A freezing legacy for our children

An email from James A. Marusek, Nuclear Physicist and Engineer, retired U. S. Department of Navy

There is a lot of talk these days about the legacy we will leave our children and our grandchildren. When I stare into the immediate future, I see a frightening legacy caked in darkness and famine. Instead of intelligently preparing, we find ourselves whittling away this precious time chasing fraudulent theories. We have a decade to prepare, but have a misguided sense of direction and urgency.

Climate change is primarily driven by nature. It has been true in the days of my father and his father and all those that came before us. Because of science, not junk science, we have slowly uncovered some of the fundamental mysteries of nature. Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars. Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. An increase in Earth's cloud cover produce a global drop in temperature. These periods of quiet sun are referred to as Grand Minima. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) and the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) are examples.

During a Grand Minimum the Earth begins to slowly cool. The start of the planting season is delayed and in the fall early frost limits the harvest. Earth's abundant bounty is put on hold and starvation takes its ghastly grip. Historian, John D. Post, referred to the last Grand Minima, the Dalton Minimum, as the "last great subsistence crisis in the Western world". With the cold came massive crop failures, food riots, famine and disease.

Several scientists including David C. Hathaway (NASA), William Livingston & Matthew Penn (National Solar Observatory). Lev I. Dorman and his team of Russian and Israeli scientists, Khabibullo Abdusamatov (Russian Academy of Science) have forecasted that the sun will enter a Grand Minima a decade from now in Solar Cycle 25. A few scientists including David C. Archibald (Australia) and M. A. Clilverd (Britain) have warned this might even begin in Solar Cycle 24. We are at the transition into Solar Cycle 24 and this cycle has already shown itself to be unusually quiet. The number of spotless days (days without sunspots) during this solar minimum appears to be tracking 3 times the typical number observed during the last century (Solar Cycles 16-23).

There are some that urge North America follow Europe's lead. On January 13, 2009, the European Parliament adopted a regulation dramatically restricting the number of pesticides allowed. This move is based on the precautionary principle and on junk science. According to Dr. Colin Ruscoe, chairman of the British Crop Production Council, "If farmers are forced to stop using certain products, crop yields would halve. There would be such huge losses in the yields of potatoes, carrots, peas and parsnips that it would become uneconomical to farm them."

Is this the kind of lead we should be following? Europe is also leading in another area - in its opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops. In Europe, environmentalist have driven fear into the hearts of their citizens by labeling GM food as "Frankenfood". In our country, we have been using GM crops for almost two decades without any ill effects. GM crops hold the promise of helping us survive the next Grand Minimum by offering crops that can grow under extreme weather conditions. North America is currently a leader in this technology. Should we follow Europe's lead and ban GM crops? And in ten years from now when the next solar cycle begins, if the sun goes quiet, who will comfort the starving children who cry out in the middle of the night for a small piece of bread? These will be our children. So what legacy will we leave behind?

[Methuselah]

I gave up at the inevitable appearance of the word fraudulent. So if conspiracy is in there too, I didn't see it.