Excerpts printed below, see full story here (h/t to David Archibald)
Anne Minard for National Geographic News
May 4, 2009 A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth’s climate might respond.
The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.
…
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
…
Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
…
Changes in the sun’s activity can affect Earth in other ways, too.
For example, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is not bottoming out the same way it did during the past few visual minima.
“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good! Let them paint and paint and paint themselves into a corner. IF it does cool due to the solar minimum (big IF!) – then where can they go to explain it away??? If CO2 is still 50% higher than “normal” – the sun cannot be used to explain why we’re not on fire. What will explain the not-so-incredibly-hot temps in 10 years? WHAT?!?
Excellent solar graphic! Says it all.
“He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.”
And of course, since they are such responsible scientists and researchers, they have carefully compiled all of the preemptive evidence to justify their preemptive denial.
Who needs to wait for the actual measurements?
[ “I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.” ]
I wonder if he thinks a few hundredths of a percent of say a billion dollars is less than a 50 to 60 percent increase on a few hundred dollars. The scale I’m using is of course just an example but the main point is that context is important. Putting something into perspective requires context and the context he provides of percentages (with the implication that they are relatively equal in actual effect) can be grossly misleading.
Wow, they are admitting that THEY are the ‘denialists’??!!!??? About time.
“preemptive denial” – What else need be said ?.
Interesting story coming out of NatGeo, one of the most vocal popular scientific publications promoting GW fear:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
“preemptive denial”
Okay — now I know it — stupid is now the ‘in’ thing.
So, before the data is in, before the cooling starts (if it starts), they’re denying it can happen. How about waiting to see what happens first? I mean, sure, the last time the sun was quiet for any length of time we had a cooler climate. Speaking for myself, it may happen again; I’m just waiting to see how the data comes in over the next few years. Maybe I’m being old fashioned but isn’t that the way science is done? At least I thought it was done that way before this global warming fad hit the planet.
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
This has to be “Quote of the Week” and it’s a definite contender for “Quote of the Year”
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.”
Ha ha ha.
“The Arctic will be ice-free in 5 years”
– Al Gore, December, 2008
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Oh brother…these people are “scientists”?!
By the way, what level of CO2 is considered “normal”? 300 ppm? Must be…
C Shannon (20:56:38) : A billion dollars.
I like that comparison. Good thought.
And that 50 to 60 % of CO2 increase isn’t much due to humans so the comparison is even more lopsided.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The thing that made me laugh, though, was this by the author:
“The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, …”
I can recall things that happened in 1949 and for most other years since then! I guess there could be a definitional issue here but my mind conjured up an image of a very very old scientist as I read this line.
The media has come a long way in the past few weeks. Finally getting on the bandwagon, perhaps they might get really brave and ask the question:
Can Grand Minima events be predicted with any certainty?
Hmmm….. if by normal he means a value of 300ppm (.03%, .0003), than aren’t we talking about hundredths of a percent with CO2 also?
We’ll see what happens. If earth’s climate does get cooler, scientists will get egg on their faces, and their reputation will suffer.
Whatever happened to objectivity in science? Has it all turned to scrying, where a computer screen replaces a crystal ball, and where observation and measurements are no longer relevant?
I bet I could write some Fortran code that proves that worms are responsible for rain. Every time it rains I see earthworms on the ground. Ergo, earthworms cause rain. QED
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
Well wouldn’t that depend on how much each contributing factor actually contributes to the total energy input into the Earth from the Sun?
The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.
The above thought is definently heretical, and if it wasn’t for the apology that comes after it – I would denouce them???
Haven’t they heard of Michael Mann and his famous Hockey Stick – there was no Little Ice Age???
Don’t they know that the climate prior to the despicable Industrial Revolution was in a perfect “Goldilocks” state, not too hot, not too cold, where it rained at night and was sunny each day?
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
Cold Snap? Who have they been listening too? Backsliding in to sceptical immorality -that’s what I say. Don’t they know that Man Made Emissions of CO2 Cause Catastrophic Global Warming – how could there be a COLD SNAP when CO2 is being pumped into the air at an ever accelerating rate?
@Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
We don’t have years. If they get their cap and trade, any cooling will be attributed to it.
Molon Labe (22:00:23) :
@Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
We don’t have years. If they get their cap and trade, any cooling will be attributed to it.
Molon: – And if snow wipes out crops and drives up food prices will they attribute those outcomes to cap and trade?
“But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.”
Of course. After the 20-year cold snap, it still might take only another 60 years before global warming destroys The Creation:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/averting-our-eyes-james-hansens-new-call-for-climate-action/?apage=3
Reminds me of a kid with matches. “Ouch, it burned me this time, but I know its not going to burn me next time … wait for it … wait for it … OUCH!”
This stuff just gets better everyday…LMAO
Anthony- At this current rate of AGW progression, I am predicting that sometime in the very near future you are going to have to reclassify this blog as comedy. But hey, you can then win Best Blog for both Science and Comedy! … a 2fer…
This site totally rocks…. 🙂
…and (solar) x-rays can vary by a factor of ten.
Ha!! More like a factor of 10,000.
I guess the author can’t read a logarithmic scale.
If the climate does cool further, perhaps someone should speak to Lockwood’s boss and demand Lockwood be fired.
Wait, “global warming skeptics” and “preemptive denialists?” Did these people not get the Newspeak memo?