New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[VillagePlank]

I'm sure that the 0.whatever% impact of solar variance plays it's part but the likes of the 30c anom over Barent/Kara in Oct/Nov must surely be a bigger driver of the atmosphere there?

There's very strong evidence that the Earth has a maximum temperature, and that when it hits that magic maximum the world is subsequently plunged into an ice-age which takes millenia to recover from. Runaway greenhouse warming for us here on Earth is, frankly, a lie perpetrated by scare-mongers, or those seeking to profit from fear.

See Vostok ice-core deuterium reconstruction.

Edited May 8, 2011 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

It's a shame that we will (in the Northern Hemisphere) be facing an increasing period of impact from the Arctic Amplification's forcing of atmospheric circulation patterns?

We have ,as I see it, had 3 winters in N.USA and N. Europe blighted by displaced Arctic air as the past summers open water sheds it's summers heat, Many recent studies have pointed to the puny impact of solar output variance (dwarfed by the impacts that 'climate change' is driving). Luckily we are studying the physical impacts that the rapid changes in the Arctic's driving ( as the preliminary paper from Overland (et al) showed us last year) so we will be left with no doubt as to why we face colder starts to our winter (as the Arctic sectors face WAA as we saw around E. Canada last year) over the years to come (no guarantees as the 'plunges' may shift east as more of the Arctic suffers the A.A. as sea ice recedes in early summer~).

Personally I have studied the 'Arctic Plunges' that have collapsed roofs/caused travel disruption , since he early naughties, over many areas of the N.Hemisphere (even through Solar max). The recent ice cover loss of areas other than Barents/Kara leads me to consider a switch away from the 'direct hits' that we ( Europe/N. USA) have suffered over the past 4 winters.

We need watch this years Arctic melt and see which areas (this year) have open stretches of 'dark water' ,from July through Sept, and how 'delayed' re-freeze is across those areas (and how the 'shed heat' impacts the air masses over those areas from Oct through Dec) and how this 'drives away' any deep cold that is able to form once the sun sets for the year in those areas.

I'm sure that the 0.whatever% impact of solar variance plays it's part but the likes of the 30c anom over Barent/Kara in Oct/Nov must surely be a bigger driver of the atmosphere there?

I think you're basing your judgement of this on the small variance in TSI, as I said and as the latest research shows, it is not TSI which drives these changes.

[VillagePlank]

There's very strong evidence that the Earth has a maximum temperature, and that when it hits that magic maximum the world is subsequently plunged into an ice-age which takes millenia to recover from. Runaway greenhouse warming for us here on Earth is, frankly, a lie perpetrated by scare-mongers, or those seeking to profit from fear.

See Vostok ice-core deuterium reconstruction.

Here's the chart:

[BornFromTheVoid]

Here's the chart:

Sorry VP, I can see how the Vostok core shows cyclical variability, mainly the Milankovitch cycles, but how does it support there being any kind of maximum temperature for Earth?

[VillagePlank]

Sorry VP, I can see how the Vostok core shows cyclical variability, mainly the Milankovitch cycles, but how does it support there being any kind of maximum temperature for Earth?

Henry's Law (or rather the inverse of it).

Premise 1: CO2 causes T. Henry's law says that as a liquid heats it will degass; that means that CO2, amongst other gases, will be released. This is positive feedback - hopefully all well and understood - with no bounds, ie the liquid will continue to degass until there's nothing left.

As a consequence of Premise 1 we should expect a exponential rise in temperatures (a consequent of positive feedbacks) and a symmetric decline as the positive feedback recedes due to temperatures cooling. This is not observed so the premise must be faulty; apart from the notion that the premise is based on the laws of physics so cannot be faulty!

One might like to postulate the argument that it's a natural system so irregularity is likely to be observed. Absolutely true, but what is amazing about this chart is that the pattern repeats itself - four times - and the pattern is uniform over the entire record of nearly 500,000 years. Temperature rises and declines are not symmetric; the rises occurs according to the premise, but the decline (shall I hide it?) simply, and inexplicably, falls away.

To my mind that can only mean that negative feedbacks (like solar orbits) have a huge lag but when they start to take effect they are powerful and limit the temperature of the atmosphere. This behaviour looks to me to describe the pattern of saturation, and precipitation - ie it takes a long time to fill but when it's saturated it empties quickly. A cloud is a perfect example - clouds can be formed over many hours (days!) but dump their rain quickly when saturated.

A conclusion from this line of reasoning might be that Mother Earth has a maximum temperature. Observerd, empirical evidence of this is in other features of the data: we come out of an ice-age and then temperatures stop rising quickly and at about the same temperature anomaly.

As an aside, Milankovitch's theory - whilst an excellent piece of scientific endeavour - has many problems associated with it including the 400k year problem, effect exceeds cause, unsplit peak, transition, dominant factor and incompleteness, here.

Edited May 8, 2011 by VillagePlank

[BornFromTheVoid]

Henry's Law (or rather the inverse of it).

Premise 1: CO2 causes T. Henry's law says that as a liquid heats it will degass; that means that CO2, amongst other gases, will be released. This is positive feedback - hopefully all well and understood - with no bounds, ie the liquid will continue to degass until there's nothing left.

As a consequence of Premise 1 we should expect a exponential rise in temperatures (a consequent of positive feedbacks) and a symmetric decline as the positive feedback recedes due to temperatures cooling. This is not observed so the premise must be faulty; apart from the notion that the premise is based on the laws of physics so cannot be faulty!

One might like to postulate the argument that it's a natural system so irregularity is likely to be observed. Absolutely true, but what is amazing about this chart is that the pattern repeats itself - four times - and the pattern is uniform over the entire record of nearly 500,000 years. Temperature rises and declines are not symmetric; the rises occurs according to the premise, but the decline (shall I hide it?) simply, and inexplicably, falls away.

To my mind that can only mean that negative feedbacks (like solar orbits) have a huge lag but when they start to take effect they are powerful and limit the temperature of the atmosphere. This behaviour looks to me to describe the pattern of saturation, and precipitation - ie it takes a long time to fill but when it's saturated it empties quickly. A cloud is a perfect example - clouds can be formed over many hours (days!) but dump their rain quickly when saturated.

A conclusion from this line of reasoning might be that Mother Earth has a maximum temperature. Observerd, empirical evidence of this is in other features of the data: we come out of an ice-age and then temperatures stop rising quickly and at about the same temperature anomaly.

As an aside, Milankovitch's theory - whilst an excellent piece of scientific endeavour - has many problems associated with it including the 400k year problem, effect exceeds cause, unsplit peak, transition, dominant factor and incompleteness, here.

Good post VP.

That Henry's Law makes perfect sense. Though I guess at times pre-human influence, the extra CO2 could cause extra vegetation growth, which may then sequester much of that extra CO2, acting as something of a balance. Over simplified for sure, but a possibility.

If the pattern observed in the Vostok core repeated back through time, then we could claim some kind of maximum temperature. But we well know that global temperatures have been much more than the 2C above current averages shown in the Vostok core, up to 15C warmer than today in the Devonian at one extreme, or even just the Pliocene where temps were up to 3C above average (continents in very similar position to today), so can't really claim there's any maximum temperature based on cyclicty through the latter part of the Quaternary imo.

[Essan]

Runaway greenhouse warming for us here on Earth is, frankly, a lie perpetrated by scare-mongers, or those seeking to profit from fear.

As opposed to those promoting, and cashing in on, the scaremongering idea of an imminent catastrophic ice age? :winky:

[jethro]

As opposed to those promoting, and cashing in on, the scaremongering idea of an imminent catastrophic ice age? :winky:

I don't think there are many of those; are there?

[Essan]

I don't think there are many of those; are there?

Well, to start with .....

http://www.iceagenow.com/

:winky:

Then there's the likes of Gavin Cooke, Nigel Calder etal, not to say numerous east European 'scientists' who keep cropping up in dubious news stories, as well as certain 'weather forecasters' etc. As well as plenty of websites.

[VillagePlank]

That Henry's Law makes perfect sense. Though I guess at times pre-human influence, the extra CO2 could cause extra vegetation growth, which may then sequester much of that extra CO2, acting as something of a balance. Over simplified for sure, but a possibility.

If the pattern observed in the Vostok core repeated back through time, then we could claim some kind of maximum temperature. But we well know that global temperatures have been much more than the 2C above current averages shown in the Vostok core, up to 15C warmer than today in the Devonian at one extreme, or even just the Pliocene where temps were up to 3C above average (continents in very similar position to today), so can't really claim there's any maximum temperature based on cyclicty through the latter part of the Quaternary imo.

You are absolutely correct in stating that there have been different 'maximums' throughout the geological ages; my concern is climate where the configuration of oceans and landmasses are, more or less, the same as today.

If one accepts that the configuration of land and oceans is a driver of climate - and, to be fair, I think that it's very difficult to argue against since, even the simplest argument of albedo shows this to be the case - then one must accept that climate must be fundamentally different, although obeying the same laws of physics, from todays, or, indeed, the last 500kyr or so.

The Devionian, had different surface configurations so it's 'maximum' - if I can call it that - must necessarily be different. The Pliocene is much like today, and, indeed, being much like today, it's 'maximum' is close to today being ~1C different from the Vostok record.

If one considers the margin of error in dT of the Vostok record it wouldn't surprise me if the Vostok record nudges up to 3C, either - the famous Petite et al paper states, and I paraphrase, that the equation to deriving the temperature on the Vostok chart whilst perhaps a small chance in Antarctica, underestimates values by up to 50%.

Edited May 9, 2011 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Well, to start with .....

http://www.iceagenow.com/

:winky:

Then there's the likes of Gavin Cooke, Nigel Calder etal, not to say numerous east European 'scientists' who keep cropping up in dubious news stories, as well as certain 'weather forecasters' etc. As well as plenty of websites.

I see. I was talking of actual scientists with published papers, not headline grabbing blog land - I ignore blog land as it's inundated with outrageous claims from both sides of the pro/anti AGW debate.

I think the few East European scientists who have predicted a new ice age have done so on the basis of a deep Solar minimum, they're predicting a little ice age, not a fully fledged one. Solar physicists, including NASA seem to be coming out in favour of this conclusion so it's hardly a crackpot idea.

There's always the chance the Sun may suddenly wake up, create a mega cycle 24 followed by an even bigger cycle 25 but it's looking increasingly unlikely; it is expected that a prolonged, deep minima or several suppressed cycles will change the climate in this part of the world.

[VillagePlank]

Well, to start with .....

http://www.iceagenow.com/

:winky:

Then there's the likes of Gavin Cooke, Nigel Calder etal, not to say numerous east European 'scientists' who keep cropping up in dubious news stories, as well as certain 'weather forecasters' etc. As well as plenty of websites.

Researchers who have predicted a long term solar minimum or ‘solar hibernation’ and/or a new climate change to a period of long lasting cold weather based upon solar activity.

1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists. Head of space research at the Pulkova Observatory, St. Petersburg.

Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006: “Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….â€

2. David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).

From his paper: Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.

Comment from paper: “Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.â€

3. Dr. O.G.Badalyan, and Dr.V.N. Obridko, Institute of Terrestrial Magnestism. Russia, Dr.J.Sykora. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic.

From their paper: Balalyan, O.G., V.N. Obridko, and J. Sykora, (2000), Brightness of the coronal green line and prediction for activity cycles 23 and 24, Solar Physics, 199: pp.421-435.

Comment from paper: “ A slow increase in (intensity of coronal green line) in the current cycle 23 permits us to forecast a low-Wolf-number (number of sunspots) cycle 24 with the maximum W~50 at 2010-2011.†(Note: a 50 sunspot level is a Dalton class minimum)

4. Dr. B. P. Bonev, Dr. Kaloyan M. Penev, Dr. Stefano Sello.

From their paper: Bonev, B.P., et. al., (2004), Long term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 605, pp.L81-L84.

Comment from their paper: “…we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in long term solar variability.â€

5. John L. Casey, Director, Space and Science Research Center. Orlando, Florida

From the center’s research report: Casey, John L. (2008), The existence of ‘relational cycles’ of solar activity on a multi-decadal to centennial scale, as significant models of climate change on earth. SSRC Research Report 1-2008 – The RC Theory, www.spaceandscience.net.

Comments from the research report:

“ As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. …It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. …This forecast next solar minimum will likely be accompanied by the coldest period globally for the past 200 years and as such, has the potential to result in world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.â€

6. Dr. Peter Harris. Engineer, retired, Queensland, Australia.

From his analysis of glacial and interglacial cycles he concludes: “…we can say there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.â€

7. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera. Researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

His comments from his research released in August 2008: “…in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts for 60-80 years.â€

8. Dr’s. Y.T.Hong, H.B. Jiang, T.S. Liu, L.P.Zhou, J.Beer, H.D. Li, X.T.Leng, B.Hong, and X.G. Qin.

From their paper: Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in 6,000-year (isotope) O18 time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10.1 (2000) pp. 1-7.

The Chinese team of researchers observed “…a striking correspondence of climate events to nearly all of the apparent solar activity changes.â€

In showing O18 isotope measurements were high during the coldest periods they concluded, “If the trend after AD 1950 continues…the next maximum of the peat O18 (and therefore cold maximum) would be expected between about AD 2000 and AD 2050.â€

9. Dr. Boris Komitov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of

Astronomy, and Dr. Vladimir Kaftan: Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Moscow.

From their paper: Komitov, B., and V. Kaftan, (2004), The sunspot activity in the last two millennia on the basis of indirect and instrumented indexes: time series models and their extrapolations for the 21st century, paper presented at the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 223.

Comment from paper: “It follows from their extrapolations for the 21st century that a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades….It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.â€

10. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (1927- 2004), Schroeter Institiute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Canada)

Among his comments from many years of research on solar climate forcing include: “Contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man made warming as high as 5.8(degrees)C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.â€

11. Dr. Ernest Njau: University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

From his paper: Njau, E., (2005), Expected halt in current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, Vol.30, Issue 5, pp.743-752.

Comment from paper: “… the mean ‘global temperature variations reaches the next peak about 2005 after which it will expectedly be on a decreasing trend. Finally it is shown that…Greenland is currently in an ongoing cooling trend which is expected to last up to at least the year 2035.â€

12. Dr. Tim Patterson: Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton Univ., Can.

From an article in the Calgary Times: May 18, 2007. Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 – the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer. Patterson: “This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us.†In other words, Canada – the great breadbasket of the world - just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.

13.Dr’s. Ken K. Schatten and W.K.Tobiska.

From their paper presented at the 34th Solar Physics Division meeting of the American Astronomical Society, June 2003:

“The surprising result of these long range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder†type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.â€

14. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Merited Scientist of Russia and Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and researcher at the Oceanology Institute.

From recent news articles, regarding the next climate change he has said: “Astrophysics know two solar cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of irradiating solar surface….Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041,and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.â€

15. Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.

From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).

Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:

“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1-2 C.â€

16. Dr’s. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Nanjing Normal University, China

From their paper in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95,115-121: Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.

“… we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.â€

Can't remember what the source was, unfortunately - but it's not my list.

Edited May 10, 2011 by VillagePlank

[PersianPaladin]

http://tallbloke.wor...ight-after-all/

To be honest, I don't know what to think yet when it comes to such predictions.

Edited June 15, 2011 by PersianPaladin

[SP1986]

I ask... why must people substitute good scientific resources (for example academic websites), for the likes of 'iceagenow.com' or globalwarmingforever.com (or whatever it may be) which clearly is biased towards it's own namesake?

It would be nice to delve into some none biased material if anyone is going to post it.. iceagenow and other similar sites just do not cut it in anyway... it is in essence the same as using wikipedia as a source for a well reasoned argument

[jethro]

I ask... why must people substitute good scientific resources (for example academic websites), for the likes of 'iceagenow.com' or globalwarmingforever.com (or whatever it may be) which clearly is biased towards it's own namesake?

It would be nice to delve into some none biased material if anyone is going to post it.. iceagenow and other similar sites just do not cut it in anyway... it is in essence the same as using wikipedia as a source for a well reasoned argument

Have a look in the 'In the news' thread, the original report is in there.

[Cheese Rice]

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003824/Earth-facing-mini-Ice-Age-years-rare-drop-sunspot-activity.html

I think its time to party....

[Guest]

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2003824/Earth-facing-mini-Ice-Age-years-rare-drop-sunspot-activity.html

I think its time to party....

It's in the Mail, so it must be true

[jethro]

It's in the Mail, so it must be true

They have to get their information from somewhere, in this instance, it's a reputable source and a true story.

http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

[Methuselah]

It sounds like a load of cobblers to me...I mean the globe still isn't cooling...

[jethro]

It sounds like a load of cobblers to me...I mean the globe still isn't cooling...

They're predicting the future.

The general consensus seems to be that it is not changes in TSI which cause changes in climate but the impact a quiet Sun has on Ozone and weather systems. The theory is that greater blocking occurs in the NH which causes colder winters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8615789.stm.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/13829/2011/acpd-11-13829-2011.pdf

The last prolonged minima and slow, low start to cycle 24 has already had this noticeable impact, if the Sun remains as quiet or becomes even quieter, this may well have a dramatic effect.

There is lots of evidence of the impact the previous deep Solar minimums had on climate, it's not something which is spurious or open to doubt, study after study shows correlation. The only questionable bit is whether these effects were localised or global; did the MWP and Maunder have a world wide impact? The answer depends upon which study you read.

Whether or not it will have an impact upon global temperatures is open to question, I would have thought it entirely depends upon the depth and length of the expected deep minima. If it's just a few years, probably not if it persists for several decades, probably yes. After all, a global average is what it says; if one part of the globe (history shows it to be at least a large chunk of the NH, centred upon NW Europe)is experiencing a long period of below average temperatures, it has to impact upon the global average.

I think we're currently running at about 0.5c above average globally, (haven't checked for a while, may be wrong on that figure) a quieter Sun may just counter balance that or it may tip the scales in the opposite direction, only time will tell. History shows us it will have some impact we just don't know how much.

[jethro]

Here is a paper which shows the global temperature impact during the Maunder Minimum.

Short version here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122

Full paper here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/Shindelletal01.pdf

[Coast]

Over the last few years, the politics of climate change have been amply forged in the fires of a changeable Sun. And the story is here again, in the form of research unveiled this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

The solar science, described graphically in a Discover Magazine post - "an east/west river of gas" which "flows under the surface of the Sun" that can't be seen directly but which is inferred from "sound waves that travel from it to the surface" - is fascinating. And what it suggests is that the Sun appears set to quieten further over the next solar cycle than it already has - with lower sunspot activity, and perhaps marginally lower energy output. But as to the implications on Earth - well, for anyone who's followed this story for a while, they're very familiar, and the telling of them is laced with equally familiar political overtones.

The big question is this: if the predictions of an impending reduction in solar activity turn into reality, what would that mean for the global climate? And that's why it becomes a political football - because if the answer is that it counteracts global warming, still more if it leads to global cooling, then moves away from fossil fuel use are at best unnecessary and at worst harmful.

The comparator here is the Maunder Minimum - a period of low solar activity running in the late 1600s and early 1700s - a "grand solar minimum" - which co-incided with a period of colder than usual temperatures - at least, in parts of Europe. So you can probably name a few organisations likely to pounce on this latest work as evidence that another cool period is coming, and that society's logical response is to drill, baby, drill and burn, baby, burn like never before.

The Register doesn't disappoint, suggesting the solar cycle predictions will become "the science story of the century" and mean that the Earth is "heading into a mini Ice Age" - while the Daily Telegraph's James Delingpole treats it as fact - "It's official: a new Ice Age is on its way". The Earth may have been a "snowball" once but an imminent repeat seems unlikely. As it has been for years, the reality is rather different. Firstly, the research itself has been presented at one rather small and rather select science meeting - not, as yet, formally published and peer reviewed. Soundings taken by dot.earth's Andy Revkin suggest that not everyone in the solar physics community likes what they've seen - so publication could yet prove a hurdle.

Secondly, the predictions made about the next solar cycle would have to turn into reality - which might not happen, however sound the science. Thirdly, even if all that happens, the Sun's activity would have to diminish enough to overwhelm the man-made contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Four years ago, in the midst of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's last major assessment of global climate and shortly after Henrik Svensmark's The Chilling Stars elaborated how the Earth's modern climate could be determined by solar effects on cosmic rays, I looked into this question for a feature article on this website - part of a series on scientific, social and political aspects of "climate scepticism". The conclusions, in a nutshell, were these:

• The Sun is the major determinant of the Earth's climate on long timescales. Cosmic rays have been a mediator of this effect. It is not the major issue on human timescales
  
• Any effect from modern changes in solar activity is likely to be dwarfed by greenhouse gas emissions and associated issues such as sulphate aerosols.
  
• That was four years ago; and since then, further research published in peer-reviewed journals has, if anything, weakened the solar case - whether involving cosmic rays or not.
  

Research on cloud formation in the real world suggests the cosmic ray amplification of cloud cover - the way the Svensmark idea works - isn't big enough. A recent modelling exercise on the impact of any future grand minimum suggested it would cool the planet by a fraction of a degree Celsius. Another recent paper concluded that while the major Ice Ages occurring every 100,000 are undoubtedly profound events, the so-called Little Ice Age that partially co-incided with the Maunder Minimum wasn't anything like that, bringing temperatures down globally by 0.3-0.4C.

Changes in cosmic ray flux have altered climate in the past, but do not seem to be dominant now. Since the beginning of the industrial era, by comparison, temperatures have risen by about 0.7C. Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth.

She summed up the importance of the latest research like this: "In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100. "So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

She could have added that changes in solar output have no impact on ocean acidification, the other major impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientific research progresses; and occasionally something that appears to be solid gets overturned by a stunning new discovery. It may be about to happen in particle physics - if neither the Tevatron nor Large Hadron Collider spots a Higgs boson soon, the standard model that scientists have worked with for years may have to be abandoned, or at least seriously reformed, and another built in its place.

And yes, the same thing could happen with man-made global warming.But it hasn't yet.

All the studies I'm referring to above are out there in the public domain - which immediately raises a question over why some accounts claim big things for the new research but fail to take into account the context afforded by the larger body of published work. The battle for public opinion on climate change is largely fought with memes; and solar changes leading to a cooling planet is one of them. On this battleground, where the bigger picture can be conveniently forgotten, it has proven remarkably persistent. Part of its appeal is that it has some scientific grounding; but it melts away in the light of the bigger research picture, and that's why it has little credence in mainstream scientific circles as a major factor in modern-day temperature fluctuations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13792479

[SP1986]

I think part of the article above misses the point somewhat.. regardless of climate changes we still need to move away from the use of fossil fuels. They simply cannot live up to our demand for energy in the future.

[Village]

I agree, the report does miss the point....but who can blame the author when the whole issue of climate has been deliberately confused by association with carbon fuels for political reasons.

As long as our politicians continue to fail us by not spending the time on understanding the subject and blindly peddling the same old CO2 theoretic then this confusion will continue to prevail.

Our own Met Office which is also politically driven through the Ministry of defence has also managed to miss the point although they do have to tow the pet political line of the day.

The truth is that even though we are now in an extremely rare insolation event the likes of which this planet has not experienced for about four hundred years the Met Office continues to peddle air temperature data statistics as being the relevant variable to watch!

The recent OPEL climate survey that they peddle out is again fundamentally flawed IMO. The survey again emphasises average temperatures as the cause for everything in our lives when it is actually NOT the cause. Insolation variability is the cause and not surface temperatures. Surface temperatures are the effect.

In the report they believe that the clothes we adorn each day are a response to average temperatures!!! When will these people give up their love affair with Met Office official averages? Its the Sun stupid!!

They actually believe that 23% of people put summer clothes on when temperatures reach 13C!! Not a mention of sunshine playing a part!! How many people do you know who will wear summer clothes on a cloudy day with top temps of 13C ? But on a sunny day under a powerful sun where in sun temperatures will climb to 40C of course they will!! But no.....they miss the obvious in there persistent love affair with temperature data.

When will they learn? Until they drop the manmade temperature averages they will never be in a position to really understand what makes our climate and therefore ice coverage alter over the long term.

[jethro]

I agree, the report does miss the point....but who can blame the author when the whole issue of climate has been deliberately confused by association with carbon fuels for political reasons.

As long as our politicians continue to fail us by not spending the time on understanding the subject and blindly peddling the same old CO2 theoretic then this confusion will continue to prevail.

Our own Met Office which is also politically driven through the Ministry of defence has also managed to miss the point although they do have to tow the pet political line of the day.

The truth is that even though we are now in an extremely rare insolation event the likes of which this planet has not experienced for about four hundred years the Met Office continues to peddle air temperature data statistics as being the relevant variable to watch!

The recent OPEL climate survey that they peddle out is again fundamentally flawed IMO. The survey again emphasises average temperatures as the cause for everything in our lives when it is actually NOT the cause. Insolation variability is the cause and not surface temperatures. Surface temperatures are the effect.

In the report they believe that the clothes we adorn each day are a response to average temperatures!!! When will these people give up their love affair with Met Office official averages? Its the Sun stupid!!

They actually believe that 23% of people put summer clothes on when temperatures reach 13C!! Not a mention of sunshine playing a part!! How many people do you know who will wear summer clothes on a cloudy day with top temps of 13C ? But on a sunny day under a powerful sun where in sun temperatures will climb to 40C of course they will!! But no.....they miss the obvious in there persistent love affair with temperature data.

When will they learn? Until they drop the manmade temperature averages they will never be in a position to really understand what makes our climate and therefore ice coverage alter over the long term.

Eh?

The METO are simply doing what we've done for many, many years in this country - keeping a temperature data set.

If this projected deep Solar minimum comes to fruition, how else are we supposed to measure the impact upon climate if not temperature? What should be measured instead? TSI measurements won't tell us much, it varies but not by a lot. Sunspots are already counted the world over.

I can't think of one official body which claims temperature causes anything, fluctuating temperature has many causes, including the variability of the Sun and CO2 emissions.