Where have all the sunspots gone?

Anthony:
The first false start to cycle 24 was back in 2006. I do not have the citation at hand, but a ‘reversed’ field spot appeared for a short time back then, predating the Jan. 4 spot by 18 months or so. As you might imagine, the discussion of the sunspot cycles is just as hot (pardon the pun) a topic in Amateur Radio discussions as it is on the GW blogs. Mentions of the Maunder Minimum crop up often, as do occasional mentions of Dalton, and the question of where have our spots gone? dominates the topics.
REPLY: Yes I recall that now, but the consensus was that one was a fluke. But the one on Jan 4th may be a fluke also. My awareness of the situation is helped by the fact that I’m a Amatuer Radio Operator myself. 73’s

Hi Anthony, great write up. I am convinced that we are looking at the return of a Dalton Minimum pattern and started blog it over a year ago at The Dalton Minimum Returns. I was unaware of the sudden drop in the GAPI in October 2005, and will investigate some more. It was my interest in amateur radio that sparked my interest in sun spots and their rise and fall indicating a connection to climate change. 73’s KF6TAR
REPLY: Russ’ site is worth a visit, I recommend it.

Oh my! Can we do anything? Could we use more solar powered cars? Or maybe fewer solar cells? Maybe we could stop burning oil and coal! That’ll spark the sun right up.
Maybe we should start a Solar Trading scheme, were there are a certain number of credits available and people or industries that use more than their fair share can simply buy someone else’s share. Yeah. That’ll change everything.
Maybe we need to start dropping nuclear waste into the sun. Would that help? Or hurt? Maybe we could start dropping AGW alarmists in! Even if that doesn’t spark things up, it would still be a lot of fun 🙂

Great post, Anthony. You are on fire! Like Russ I’d not seen the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph with the step before, fabulous. Another radio aficionado, Jan Alvestad, has a great blog for following the data, dxlc. There will certainly be a lot of blood on the floor at NASA over the AWOL cycle 24.

BTW, the genius of (now deceased) Theodore Landscheidt continues to amaze me. He flat out nailed, decades ago, the decline in solar activity after 1990, a less intense #23, and a steep decline into a Dalton-type minimum activity. Genius…

I live in Western Europe. So far we’ve had a warm winter. We’ve been saved by the warm Golf Stream. But I believe that will not last long very long.
What I understand and believe is that we have to wait 2 more years before we enter Cycle 24. That will make 4 years with low solar activity compared to the normal 1 year of low activity. There is a 3 year lag time before we start to feel the full affect here on Earth.
This should lower the Earth’s temperature by 1.5 Centigrade, by 2015-2020. During the last hundred years it have been risen by 0.6-0.7 Centigrade.
The only good thing about this cold snap is all the pseudo scientists that will get fired.

Golf Stream. Is *that* where all my golf balls end up? 🙂

They have already gone on record as saying the cooling in Antarctica not only was predicted, but does not in any way contradict their models.
Seriously: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold

Keep up the good work. It is refreshing to see someone else promoting
facts and the truth. Don’t let up!

MattN: Could not agree more on Dr. Landscheidt. Even though he may have been a largely self-taught Heliophysicist he had phenomenal instincts unlike some academicians, e.g, Leif Svalgaard, who are his steadfast detractors.
Ran across a paper by Tsagas(2006) that might point to the second derivative zeroes in solar angular momentum due to barycentric orbit causing a relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force. The transit through the gravitaional well would induce a repulsive force at right angles to the field, i.e., the polar axis, suffcient to stop the gravitational collapse of a black hole.
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit. DeJager, Versteegh(2004) criticised Landscheidt’s proposal believing it to imply a tidal force as the cause (a change in direction of the angular momentum), but the Dr. did not specifiy the source. I believe the Dr. will be found correct and has more surprises in store.

Like many of the others, I also believe we are entering a prolonged period of lowered solar activity with will have adverse (read colder) effects on climate. However, the sharp step-function drop in the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index that started in October 2005 just doesn’t look natural.
As a Systems Engineer, when I see something like this my first reaction is “bad data”. It’s a hunch but usually correct. Anthony alluded to this sentiment when he compared the plot to that of a relocated temperature station. I’ll try to do some digging into the data provenance. If its real, the implications could be huge.
REPLY: Jeff, I thought that initially too, and I looked at the source of the Ap data and found this in SWPAC’s header for the dataset they published:
Source Ap: GeoForschungsZentrum, Postdam, Germany
Prior to January 1997, Institut fur Geophysik, Gottingen, Germany
So it didn’t seem like a data source on instrument switch, that I could find. Partial collapse of the geomagnetic fields is a real possibility too.

I think that the real danger here is our absolute lack of forethought and preparedness for a period of cooling. If there actually was going to be warming, it seems that it would result in a period of agricultural abundance. Warm climatological conditions are good for most things human. Cooling, on the other hand, will result in a period of hardship.
There is relatively little that needs to be done to respond to warming. Cooling will require a rethinking of crop management or we may see world food shortages and the political and social instability that follows a short step behind. We are selling our economy on the idea of turning our arable land to the task of fuel production, in an effort to reduce the use of petroleum, in the hopes of reducing greenhouse gasses, in the belief that this will stabilize our climate. I do not see anything positive coming out of our current policies.
I wish that there were more discussion in the media about this topic. We need to educate people on the real possibilities of climate change….not the popular ones.

Wow, it’s just like that Twilight Zone episode, The Midnight Sun . She dreamt the Earth was getting too hot, but it was really getting too cold.
The poles of fear, the extremes of how the Earth might conceivably be doomed. Minor exercise in the care and feeding of a nightmare, respectfully submitted by all the thermometer-watchers in the Twilight Zone.

Time series of the Earth’s albdeo can be found

Although my earlier comment was humor, I have to say that I actually take this very seriously. I also was unaware of the drop in October 2005, and I find it fascinating… and a bit frightening.
The way the AGW industry has set themselves up, they’ll probably pat themselves on the back for any cooling, and will convince many people that their sacrifices and hard work are the cause. Of course, the fact that their most dire warming predictions magically line up with the expected results of Cycle 24 has to be complete coincidence, right? How is that going to work when it doesn’t happen?
What a brilliant time for us to be converting food crops to fuel…

Does anyone know what Jasper Kirkby, of CERN and CLOUD, presented in a paper to the Royal Scientific Academy of Sweden, yesterday?
=========================

Excellent post, Anthony.
If we do see continued climate cooling and it starts to impact agricultural production then we will return to the regular famines that have dissapeared over the last 30 years.
The problem will be that the ideology of global warming is so entrenched that steps mitigate food supply problems won’t be taken because this would be an admission that the steps taken to mitigate GW were wrong, and as a result food supply problems will be worse than they would be otherwise.
For example, India is currently developing more heat tolerant strains of wheat in preparation for the anticipated warming. But this has been a winter of record cold across the wheat growing areas of northern India.
http://www.newkerala.com/one.php?action=fullnews&id=19139
The temps over the next few weeks will determine how good the wheat harvest is. If the cold weather continues, we will see the impact on food supply in a couple of months.
This quote from a couple of days ago,
“We will be able to achieve the expected production level of wheat but this will be subject to the temperatures in February and March,” Farm Secretary P.K. Mishra told Reuters in an interview.
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-31273820080107

Anthony, many thanks for a simple yet comprehensive explanation of the Sun’s rubber-band-like magnetic fields. As an avid balsa-wood-plane flyer about, oh, a half-century ago, I instantly ‘got’ the sense of how a magnetically-paired sunspot would break out of the sphere. I’d never had that understanding before. Keep up the good work.
REPLY: My pleasure, being on TV explaining how the weather works has helped me here.

This is much worse than I had been led to believe. Humans and their naughty industrializations have not only destroyed the earth, but now we learn that they have even slowed down the sun! The U.N. must be given authority to tax everyone on earth before it is too late. And students should not be forced to pay back their college loans if they are studying the crises of global warming.

Crosspatch,
I got a chuckle from this comment following the article about the Chevy Volt that you linked to:

everyone no’s that global warming is real. co2 levels have dramatically increased since the industrial revolution. we know that co2 increases temperature: just look at venus. how can you say that global warming isn’t real?

BTW, you might remember me as “Retired Spook” at AJ’s. I got lured to this blog by a comment you made last spring.

Joe in San Diego: A good advice!
AW: I think NASA and Hansen don’t admit the comic ray cloud connection, at least not it’s full implications on the climate. TSI I think is defined as the solar irradiance in space (satellite measured), and therefor the cloud effect isn’t included. IPCC also means that many sunspots (when the sun is in its active phase) lower the impact from solar radiation, which is also true, but the main cooling effect when the sun is inactiv (and have no magnentic sunstorms to shield the earth from cosmic rays) is the increased and large cover of cooling clouds (clouds at low altitude, increasing the aldebo).
IPCC and Hansen tries to avoid the comsic ray cloud theory. I guess it’s because it’s too powerful and “CO2-harming”. 😉

Can anyone explain this?
“Could not agree more on Dr. Landscheidt. Even though he may have been a largely self-taught Heliophysicist he had phenomenal instincts unlike some academicians, e.g, Leif Svalgaard, who are his steadfast detractors.
Ran across a paper by Tsagas(2006) that might point to the second derivative zeroes in solar angular momentum due to barycentric orbit causing a relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force. The transit through the gravitaional well would induce a repulsive force at right angles to the field, i.e., the polar axis, suffcient to stop the gravitational collapse of a black hole.
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit. DeJager, Versteegh(2004) criticised Landscheidt’s proposal believing it to imply a tidal force as the cause (a change in direction of the angular momentum), but the Dr. did not specifiy the source. I believe the Dr. will be found correct and has more surprises in store.”

Excuse me that would be a 14 year SS Cycle, not 16 year.

Edward: Carl Schmidt has a site, http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/, devoted to Landscheidt’s work.

Gary Gulrud
Thanks for the responses.
I have some questions related to understanding how the relativistic perturbration works within Landscheidt theories.
Theodor Landscheidt focused on the negitive extrema of dT/dt not the zero value. Does the relativistic perturbration by means of the Lorentz force at zero dT/dt result in a negitive extrema of dT/dt as the barycenter transits through the gravitaional well?
The field’s hystereisis would rigidly oppose the imposed deformation due to the transit?? Which field?

Edward: I tried to improve my post with one at Carl’s site. Dr. Landscheidt’s interest in the torque I take to have been provisional, conjectural but you are correct the negative extrema where d2/dt = 0 is the point of departure, for whatever it might be worth.

Aren’t we in danger of distracting ourselves from the principle causes of global weather dynamics by arguing about 2nd order effects like hystereisis when, in fact, the possible 1st order effects like cloud cover, its variability and causes can possibly explain 70-80% of the temperature swings seen over 1000’s and hundreds of 1000’s years.
It seems to me that winning this or any other conflict requires a judicious choice of battles that give us both strategic and tactical advantages. Heaven knows, I’m can be as nerdy and anyone but quibbling about the 20-30% of the drivers of GW, while fun, only diverts attention and action on those key drivers that will (possibly) win the GW battle sooner.
Here’s how I see it, clouds are clearly important to how much solar energy is received (nobody would disagree that there’s a 10-30 degree difference on sunny vs. cloudy days), it’s reasonable to expect that global cloud cover, of the temperature affecting kind, can vary some percentage (say 20-30%) AND we have a CAUSAL mechanism for cloud formation (like cosmic rays) AND we have a mediating mechanism (like the solar magnetic umbrella then, strategically, it’d make sense to fight THAT battle, win it and watch the opposition collapse.
These other battles, while we might win them, are, I believe, gives the GW people a chance to use the “bumping the enemy” technique of fighting (slightly similar arguments designed to forestall killing blows.) We run the risk of arguing in the margins and losing the battle.
It seems me, though we all like the intellectual battle but, we should pick our battles carefully or we run the risk of having strategy and tactics used against us such that we lose the battle. Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory can give us enough of a strategic advantage in this battle that we can quickly strike a killing blow to the GW crowd, quickly and decisively.
Intellectual battles are fun but I think arguing about 2nd order effects plays into GW crowd’s hand… not the best idea at this time.
That said, Anthony’s work is exemplary but, to win this battle it seems to me that we need to put it in context of a winnable battle plan, it’s a start but, I believe it needs to be integrated into a more robust battle plan.
Again, sorry for the really long response.

But I haven’t seen any comments on last year’s Lockwood & Frohlich paper:
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
which concludes: “…over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.”
Is there something wrong with their analysis?

“No wonder there is so much talk recently about global cooling. I certainly hope that’s wrong, because a Dalton type solar minimum would be very bad for our world economy and agriculture. NASA GISS published a release back in 2003 that agrees with the commonly accepted idea that long period trends in solar activity do affect our climate by changing the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

I found out today the Energy Information Adminstration is projecting an increase in cooling days this summer which will decrease peak electricity demand, bucking previous demand forecasts.
Electricity
Consumption. Summer 2008 cooling degree-days are projected to be about 10 percent lower than they were last year. Less demand for power to run air conditioners is therefore projected, lowering growth in residential electricity sales. Total electricity consumption is expected to grow by only 0.4 percent in 2008, then return to a growth rate of 1.6 percent in 2009 (U.S. Total Electricity Consumption). [eia http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Electricity_Markets ]

Svenmark’s lack of a correlation with surface temperatures “raises doubts about the surface temp. readings.” That’s not a very scientific conclusion. Sure, it raised doubts assuming his theory is correct. Except it’s this very theory he’s trying to verify, so it equally raised doubts about his theory.
When I read their reply, on top of their previous work, they seem to be going to more and more complications to keep their theory alive. Not impressive.
So, assuming CO2 lags temperature, and assuming we’ve entered a period of cooling here in the last… 8 years, how soon should we see a decline in atmospheric CO2 content? It keeps going up, if you’ve noticed.

David:
Here’s a good rebuttal of Lockwood & Frolich: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=131
“PMOD…assumes that the published TSI satellite data are wrong and that they need several additional corrections.”
So basically, the olny way they can make the solar activity fit their hypothesis is to invent an adjustment to make it not correlate.

So, assuming CO2 lags temperature, and assuming we’ve entered a period of cooling here in the last… 8 years, how soon should we see a decline in atmospheric CO2 content? It keeps going up, if you’ve noticed.
David, if that really bothers you, here is a potential solution.

THe above comment was addressed to David. The name didn’t make the copy and paste. Sorry about that.

John, why do you say slow march upward when it isn’t. And the panic won’t be in the skeptical crowd.
================

Mike wrote:
> CO2 does continue to go up. Why? Excellent
> question. Are humans contributing to it?
> I would suspect so. Are humans contributing
> to it to the level espoused by the IPCC and
> the likes of Al Gore? I don’t think so. It’s
> too steady a climb for me
> to accept that.
Too steady a climb? That’s the whole point. Look at the consumption of almost any fossil fuel resource on the planet — wood, oil, gas, coal, electricity production — they have all been going steadily up for decades. They are all known to produce CO2. So why do you doubt that the CO2 emission increase is primarily manmade?
> Would you not agree, if CO2 doubles and the runaway
> temp. scenarios are not realized, the chances of
> actually realizing it become extremely low?
*Runaway* temperatures? No. No one really knows at what point runaway temperatures — ie nonlinearity — enters the climate system. In any case, temperature lags CO2 in greenhouse scenarios, so it would be quite some time — second half of 21 century, perhaps — until we could conclude that. By then it will be far too late.

kim wrote:
> I don’t think it is inconceivable we’ll see the
> CO2curve flatten or turn downward.
Do you (or anyone) have a calculation or theory telling us about *when* this should happen?

Kim, Leif Svalgaard posted on CA that he believes the rate of change of CO2 has decreased.
I suspect as the Oceans cool this to be true

Joe in San Diego: I agree totally with you, and my little comment there was for Antohny Watts (“AW:”).
The sunspot connection (which should be a magnetic sun wind connection, or?) is hugely important for not at least climate shifts in the interglacier periods, but it’s not the only and single cause.
I don’t consider CO2 to have more effect then a background effect of more than one or a few tenth of a degree, but pattern in the oceans and other things is also affecting at least short term (remember El Nino), and we must also believe that the Milankovitch cycles makes the world icy and put it in a state of higher aldebo (something like a positive feedback into another state/”state of balance”). The way into the coming ise age will be about en 0.5 degree C decline per millenium, and with some descent warmth periods and some little ice ages, both triggered by planetarian orbit cycles and the sun activity, where the latter is a strong and important factor!
–
But a big thing in the AGW hypothesis I think is at least wwo things. First how much antropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere that we humans has caused, and how much that is caused by warmer seas due to a warmer climate the last few hundred years? Second how much CO2 the oceans without harm can swallow.
I think/hope this AGW hype dies withot too much harm from political enforcements on the economics. I think there is plenty of oil left for us. Maybe three times as much than we’ve have burned until now. But now we have burned 1000 Gt CO2 (the atmosphere cnsists of 3000 GT CO2), so can the sea without problem swallow some extra 2000 Gt CO2? We shall never without any proof be alarmistic about an environment issue, but it would be fine to research this I think. The problem may be that immediately scintist will be alarmistic about “threats” to get more money… Again.

“Historically, earth temperature is a product of solar output/sunspot cycles and CO2 is a trailing indicator. This is primarily due to offgassing from the warmer ocean.”
I’ve been hearing that one can tell the amount of fossil fuel burn CO2 based on the relationship of two isotopes in CO2, # 12 and #13. Does anyone here have graph or data that shows this in *any* way? Can’t seem to locate this.
I’m asking because we’re talking about ocean sinks and so on. These must function like “last in first out.” Depending on how long CO2 is claimed to last — assume the oceans are warming, wouldn’t they release the CO2 they took up during the industrial revolution, the 40’s, and so on?
If so then the 12/13 ratio isn’t telling us the *current* rate of human contribution, but the SUM of human contribution for whatever the claimed half life of CO2 is supposed to be. Seems this could be important depending on what the ratios are and what the claim is.
Obviously I’m not the first to notice/ask, so does anyone here know where the relevant info is found? There’s probably a FAQ that answers silly queries like this one.
Thanks…

David:
Why do I doubt . . . ?
I say too steady because the growth in human CO2 output has been exponential. The number I recall off the top of my head, I read about 4-6 months ago, a tad over 1300% since 2003. With the rampant increase in output, I would think the increase would have accelerated beyond the 1.1 ppm per year recorded. Suggests to me there is a steady state, medium to long term influence which does not follow humans activity. When looking at the Mauna Loa charts, there seems to be a slight movement from linear to exponential, but that’s a visual on my part so take that for what it is. Ultimately, what humans put up is so small as compared to ol’ mother nature, you are probably correct in that it would be very hard to detect the exponential growth effect of human output.
Regarding the runaway scenarios, obviously I don’t believe it will happen. However, there is always the chance I’m wrong. What I am saying is since we are roughly 50% of the way to pretty much the maximum heat retention atmopheric CO2 can achieve, the chances of that hypothesis coming true are dropping. It is, afterall, a hypothesis, not supported anywhere in the earth’s climate history. Whether it was 60 billion years ago, or 800 years ago, (I believe the MWP was a world wide event, but it is inconsequential as to whether it was or not), or whenever, the earth has been warmer, has had more atmospheric CO2, life managed and it cooled down enough to get glaciers over where my house is today.
Anyway, it’s late and with 3 girls under 6, they don’t care if I was up until midnight. The allowed out of bed at 7 a.m. rule is strictly followed and I’m going to pay for this. I often have to beat them back to their room at 6:30. They’re sneaky ones and their mom is not exactly a morning person. Pretty much useless in fact. Have a good one. Probably won’t be back on until Monday.
Cheers

With solar input driving climate the news that sunspot activity and magnetic activity are decreasing is a worry for food production. It is lucky that crops for fual can be converted to food, if they actually grow. Increased atmospheric CO2 would help, 700ppmv giving, on average, a 40% increas in growth and cropping with reduced water use.
CO2 is not the pollutant that the enviro alarmists shout about. To my mind. as a geologist, it is the most inportant gas in the atmosphere in that without it life as we know it would be impossible. No CO2, no photosynthesizing plants. Since water vapour is the most active so called greenhouse gas, up to 95% of all activity in that area, then CO2 has no real greenhouse action.
The Medieval warm Period had CO2 levels of 250 ppmv or so but temperatures warm enough to grow grape vines in northern England. Impossible today. All other data shows that CO2 has no climate driving action. It is a pity that the truth is not accepted by all.

What species is more adaptable than humans, and plenty of species survived the Ice Ages.
=======================

Since CO2 is a trailing indicator of global (ocean) temperatures, and may not drop right away with global cooling, agricultural productivity show stay up for a few years as the glaciers reverse direction.
But when Canadian winter wheat fails, the rice crop in India fails, and sundry other crops express their displeasure at gloomy, damp weather, surplus land will not help.
Please don’t be so insular in your outlook. China, to mention one big consumer, has very little extra crop land. Ditto Europe with out major land reform.
It has been estimated (source?) that much of the miraculous increase in corn productivity per acre in the 20th century was CO2-based, not totally genetics.
There is a (fiction) book called “The end of the world as we know it ( http://teotwawki.net/index.html ) that describes the carrying capacity of the earth. When peak oil at least plateaus, the coming negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will be enough to cause massive starvation.
Short of oil, crops unprepared for climate cooling, limited land resources, water shortages— the estimated carrying capacity of the earth has variously estimated as between 2 and 5 billion. The upper limit depends on good science, continued civilization, and international trade and cooperation. The lower figure is equated with breakdown in civilization, many small wars, not necessarily nuclear, and general failure of society.
I am inclined to think the best manual for understanding what to do during 20-30 years of Global Cooling is Jared Diamond’s “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” See http://www.energybulletin.net/3782.html

Joe in San Diego,
I presume you are being “tongue-in cheek”- or at least I hope so.
There is a problem with your gaming. First, Global ??? is not a game.
Secondly, depending on your reliance on the Diety, someone already knows which player will win. The game is “fixed.”
Thirdly, while you are playing the game, precious time is being lost.
As an aside, your comment “The scoring system is mutually agreed to by all teams” is an impossibility. Witness McIntyre and McKitrick vs Mann (Hockey stick debacle).
My concern is the 100s of billions of $ being spent on Kyoto, warm-weather genetics, and carbon-trading are needed NOW for irigation systems, African and Brazial infrastructure and transportation. Farmland in George or Alabama might be a good buy also. Crop failures could come as early as 2017, and some say last intermitantly until 2040 or 2050. Yikes!

Engineer,
Not really tongue-in-cheek…
Thing is, time is money (literally!) as we go down the GW path, billions or trillions of $$ will be spent, arguing with these guys will play into their hands as the public are already in their camp due to their emotional, apocalyptic tack.
Neither of these groups will listen to intellectual arguments at this time, their emotional positions will preclude this change. Joel Barker talks about the fact that to give up and old paradigm for a new one involves not just thinking that the new path is better but includes heavy weight on the discomfort/discomfort factor, they’ll continue in their given path (much like lemmings) because they’re scared to death to turn away and take a new one!
We can’t change that dynamic no matter how much we want to, it’ll take a few years to make that pivot operation take place and we’re kidding ourselves if we think it’ll happen overnight. Money will be spent… maybe a lot, but it’ll keep GETTING spent until we can affect a pivot in the current death march.
To re-emphasize, we can not win these early battles, they’re lost and money WILL BE SPENT. The conceptual errors of the GWers will not be realized and corrected till they are either proved unequivocally wrong by a quick turn in temperature or, the world commits to their no-growth, ill-advised spending plans and… after the trillions of $$s get spent and, HEY, WADDAYA KNOW, NOTHING’S CHANGING!
I wouldn’t bet on either of these occurring without an untold squandering of the world’s wealth and the reduction of the future generation’s wealth creating ability. I’d have never had bet that the people at Jonestown would have done what they did but, they did it anyway! I’m as optimistic as anyone but I think we need to argue from what is, whether we agree with it or not, group delusions and their effect may be un-rational but, given that people DO THOSE THINGS we should be able to factor those human-factors into our thinking.
As Issac Asimov posited in “Foundation”, that at some point in an intellectual decline the question THAT one will occur becomes moot, the only issue then becomes what are the: depth, duration and cost of the ‘dark ages’ and how can WE control those factors. I’d argue that we are past that point of stopping this in its tracks and the only thing we CAN control is those three factors of how deep, how long and at what cost will the human race have to pay?
In the game, IF they won’t play right away then we basically are in control of both sides of the game creation, rules and gate locations and we get to set up the rules. If they agree to the game with the idea of undermining the hunt for the truth then we still have the on-line game approach and, again, we control the development of the game rules.
In either one of the scenarios where we can develop a true, rational set of rules and gates then, at some point in the future we get to push RATIONAL rules into the discussion, either through their acquiescing to a mature game or by running the games via OUR rules and using the same PR mechanisms THEY use to gradually turn the discussion in our favor. Seems like a no-lose proposition to me!
Well, like I said, the game was sketched in one sitting… I think our basic disagreement is whether we have time… I think we see the current state of the CURRENT game differently. You think we can arrest this path with little or no cost, I believe that we can ONLY control the depth of the damage that we will have to pay.
I think that the game approach is a path but, I think that we haven’t even agreed on the current game conditions, I believe that the game currently being played of arguing intellectual points is non-viable on our part and as we dither away playing THEIR game we will encounter defeat after defeat because we are arguing facts and the other players are playing to emotions.
Honestly, everyone needs to decide their own path but, going off to a noble defeat is just not in me… not everyone, maybe no one agrees with me but, this is out there so, do with it what you feel best.

uh… that didn’t enter well..
The — DISCOMFORT/DISCOMFORT factor — should rather read the — COMFORT/DISCOMFORT factor– … my apologies.

We will fight them in the coffee shops, we will fight them in the op-eds, we will fight them in the blogs, we will never give up.
===============================

It’s true that arguing with a committed AGWer is pointless. For them anyway, the debate really IS over. The people who do need to hear the truth are the general public, many of whom are either agnostics on the issue, or who simply believe it because that is pretty much all they hear day in and day out. I was in that latter group myself up until a little over a year ago.
The biggest weakness in the whole AGW hypothesis is in C02. They need C02 (which they cleverly call “carbon”) to be considered pollution, rising at an “alarming” rate, and creating a runaway greenhouse effect, melting the ice caps, killing polar bears, and creating all sorts of climate disasters. C02 is their achilles heel, and that is where they must be hit hard, and continually.

“Tell me it has not come to that. Any scientific theory (on either side) must be falsifiable.” Unfortunately, it has. Because AGW isn’t about science. It’s more like a religion. The people who argue for AGW are completely irrational, and yes, hysterical. You can’t prove anything to them because they aren’t even thinking clearly. However, you can certainly combat what they say to a wider audience.

they position their minions on each distribution point and undermine both the delivery person and message at each entry point into the the world’s stage.
Joe, as Anthony notes in his most recent post, “nature will be the final arbiter”. When the temperature starts going down, as, in fact, it may already have, no amount of spin is going to drown that out.

Stan, one can only hope that the temperature would go down… it’d make this battle simpler!
I believe though there are two issues that might lead to disappointment on our side.
First, is that nature won’t necessarily cooperate with us and conveniently give us that cold snap we’d like. As I asked in an earlier posting, even though the sun appears to be entering a quiet phase right now and it appears (based on Anthony’s magnetic field strength graph from above) his data goes back to 1991 yet we know that since 1900 the sun’s magnetic field has doubled in strength. Low solar activity + Unusually strong base field strength produces… WHAT result? Nobody’s answered that question yet so, I think the jury’s out on that one and, though it might happen, I wouldn’t bet my whole game plan on it! Our best case scenario is to we get an IMMEDIATE temperature reversal and (given our luck to date) my betting is that (if it happens soon) it’ll happen somewhere out in the next few years NOT this year! Would that it would be so but, I wouldn’t put too many eggs in THAT basket!
As Svensmark and Calder said in their book, it’s too early in our stage of understanding for ANY prediction to be offered, (even one that we desperately want and need!)
Second, even IF temperatures show a pronounced cooling, I’d wager that this group hysteria and fear will prove to be a game condition that will persist for 5-15 years depending on how effectively the GW can mount defensive actions. To date, they’ve proved to be resourceful beyond belief, using techniques that shows a certain level of desperation but, they are arguably holding their own quite effectively.
During that 5-15 years a tremendous amount of the world’s wealth will be squandered because you just can NOT turn a ship of this size on a dime and avoid the costs associated with the current path.
Put reasons 1) and 2) together and, if I were making probabilistic estimates, I’d put the chances of 1) mother nature cooperating and 2) GWers playing a out-of-character game role a pretty low (<20%)
Thing is, we control NEITHER of these factors so we’re only guessing here but, good strategist/tacticians have uncanny abilities to be way more right than wrong based on effective use of their own use of forcing and attractor functions. I’m not sure we have the strategic/tactical abilities to obtain the lower probability outcomes right now, hence my expectations for a prolonged battle.
So, me being a belts and suspenders kind of person, I’d say that it’s still ‘game on’ until this full dynamic plays out. We have to play this out on THEIR chosen field of battle, with THEIR rules and with THEIR referees UNTIL we affect a change in the game!

The best part of sitting on the fence should be the ability to see both ways. This them-vs-us breaks down into argumentun ad hominum (“you’re wrong because I don’t like you!”) which accomplishes nothing. This thread mostly avoids that error–I hope.
To anticpate the arguments pro and con global warming, it may help us to rehash some of the facts. Antarctica has had more ice surface area lately than any time since satelite surveillance started around 1979 – http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg (There’s a lot of data on this site. Edit out the folders after /IMAGES/ and browse around.
As it starts to cool, AGW-proponents tend to say that it’s caused by Global Warming and CO2. If we have some severe cooling, one argument will be melting of Greenland (which may NOT be melting…) is diluting the thermohaline deep water formation areas, slowing the ocean thermal conveyor. While this might cool the heck out of Denmark and Scotland, it should stor MORE heat nearer the equator. So you can see how this scenario could be blamed for droughts and high temperatures in Africa.
The problem with slowing the thermohaline circulation is it takes a whole big lake of water – like Lake Missoula, which formed the Columbian River Basis and likely caused the cooling of the Younger Dryas period 13,200 years ago. Glacial melt water comfined for years, and released over a short period.
On the side of Global Cooling is the fact (as someone mentioned) that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is overdue for the cold phase and may be doing it’s thing now see- http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
I could go on and on, but many of you know these things. I think a good drive in the countryside might cool us off. Browse this site provided by the friendly Association of British Drivers – http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm

Randy Washburn, can you explain this post a little. I don’t quite understand it. Particularly the “Sixteen Part” part…..
“If Theodor Landscheidt’ s assertions in 1999, Extrema in Sunspot Cycle Linked to Sun’s Motion, are correct and the next “Sixteenth Part” (SP) of the 178.8 Year Solar Retrograde Motion (RSI) is to happen in 2012.5 then the minima of Cycle 23 should have already happened, however the delay means that the SP looks to be switching to the Solar Minima and that would mean that Cycle 23 should last until 2010.6 at the EARLIEST!. That makes for a (14) year Sunspot cycles. Nothing like that has happened since 1790! According to this paper of the deceased professor, GRHS, we are in for 4 to 5 very weak sunspot cycles. Not like the Dalton minima but like the Maunder Minima!”

MattN,
I’ve said it before, people that visit this site and their ilk are playing the wrong game here. We believe that it’s ‘facts and evidence’ data channel that will serve as the conduit to truth and victory yet the GWers use the ‘hysteria and fear’ data channel to drown out your message.
They must be sitting back in their chairs and chuckling and, in the (paraphrased) words of a great politician (whether you like his politics or not) “Its the hysteria and fear, stupid!”
I don’t know how to argue facts into the kind of emotionally changed game condition that has been created and get, well, any rational response. Fact is, they MUST panic in their condition… if you plug on hole with intellectual argument, a student of human nature would EXPECT them to abandon the current delusion and pick up another one. It’s the proverbial seven-headed hydra!
We really need to get THAT or we’ll continue to wonder why things aren’t going right… so, “IT’S THE GAME, STUPID!” (I really hate using those words so, pardon my bluntness.)
We’re playing the wrong GAME and it’d be somewhat funny if it weren’t for the fact that getting IT weren’t so danged important!
Jim Rohn said in one of his talks that we need to stop expecting people to be what they’re not… mockers MUST mock, cheaters MUST cheat, …! It’s OK for them to do what they do the GWers are the ‘hysteria and fear’ people, they’ll do THAT, we’re not going to change what they are and what they do.
We don’t have to agree that what they do is right, just that they are what they are! We can’t expect them to be different than they are, we just need to be good enough to recognize WHAT they are and design effective strategies to combat them. So far, after 15+ plus years and more countries becoming forced into the delusion (Australia is the latest I think) we might suspect our current approach isn’t working.
Maybe we just have to do more and do it better but, insanity has been defined as doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes! So far, I’d say we’re manifesting early (maybe late) signs of that affliction.
This may not be a SATISFYING answer but, I believe it’s a fair assessment of the current game condition.

Like it or not, this is war. It isn’t one that the skeptics started or wanted. The AGW behemoth uses lies, personal attacks and smears, threats to occupation, censorship, and self-righteousness, among other things to force their beliefs onto humanity. So far, they’ve been extremely successful. Many, for various reasons, be they political, occupational, or monetary have jumped onto that bandwagon, and it is a huge, lumbering one. Woe betide any misfortunate skeptic who jumps in its path.
I believe the key to stopping that bandwagon lies with the public. Climate science continues on, and it is fascinating, and much of it further disproves AGW. But, as far as the public is concerned, it’s just more noise, and too complex. AGW is drummed into them continually by the media (although that appears to be changing somewhat now). They need to hear the truth, and it needs to be kept simple. C02 doesn’t cause climate change. It’s the sun.
Write letters to the editor (that’s what I do), congressmen, talk to people about it (might want to feel them out, first, though). Whatever you can do. Silence is deadly to truth.
And, keep up the good work, Anthony!

people that visit this site and their ilk

FYI it should be “people WHO visit this site”.
I am not an ILK!

15 day with no activity. The last sunspot over 2 weeks ago was so small I have difficulty really calling it one. It lasted little more than a day and was a low latitude spot associated with cycle #23. There has been no high latitude activity (cycle #24) since the small reversed one appeared last month. Solar flux has flatlined at ~70.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/

Most of the east coast of Australia is on track to have the coldest February on record. In past summers we have seen temps up to 50d c and this year we barely get around 30 often hovering in mid to low 20s. Often people say oh its la nina but when its hot then why dont they say oh its el nino instead of global warming, global warming. Theres another solar cycle 24 prediction meeting due in March – if we keep going on with this blank sun it will be fascinating to see what they say. We live in interesting times.

“it will be fascinating to see what they say”. Oh, probably something to the effect of, “yeah, we knew that”, and “climate chaos” blah, blah, blah; and of course, we’ll likely get an upward spike in temp., and they’ll say “see, it’s the C02, we told you”. In short, they will continue to lie and spout their C02 pseudo-science, even as the temps continue their downward trend.

And if a large, heavy ash-type volcano eruption occured in concert to the solar inactiviey? The cooling rate would accelerate rapidly.

If the sudden drop in 2005 is not an artifact we are being bombarded with cosmic rays and our ozone is likely getting thin if the theory holds true. Could be why I am sleeping under a winter pile of blankets in April because our blanket in the sky is now just a thin sheet.
1. Can we change the geomagnetic data into anomaly data?
2. Then can we do the same thing with cosmic ray measures reaching earth?
3. Finally can we find ozone data and do the same thing to it?
4. Then can we put the temperature anomaly data together with 1, 2, and 3 and show all on the same graph?

Mr Watts:
It is now a few more months since this article, and still seems to be very little sunspot activity. I check for them daily and haven’t heard any more about the apparent lull from the media.
I did see a little spot a week or so ago. Now – nothing.
What’s up?
Charlie
REPLY: Try clicking on the main page link “Home” to keep abreast of new articles.

I recommend reading an article in the March 2005 issue of the Scientific American called “How did humans First Alter Global Climate?”.
Although the ideas in the article have been termed controversial they do give you a good feeling about the unexpected benefits of global warming. Also the article emphasizes the long term cycles related to earth wobble, incident solar radiation changes and variations in CO2 levels. I especially like the graph on page 53, suggesting what might happen to global temperatures when we stop burning fossil fuels (they plummet).
To some extent this article also explains why climatologists thought global cooling was more likely back in the 60s and 70s and then changed to worrying about global warm. I have heard this used to make the argument that climatologists have no idea what they are talking about and thus scientist should not be trusted. Probably unfair but an effective NERF (not easily refutable) comment.
Generally, I think you have to be very tempered when criticizing peer reviewed material. It is very likely that we are causing global warming. However, it is also likely that global cooling can occur and this is at least as concerning.
In a bigger sense, I wonder if we ought consider the possibility that we are actually, albeit accidentally, involved in climate control. That in itself, carries enormous social responsibility, as your ‘good’ weather will someone else’s ‘bad’ weather. However, we might all be able to get behind that idea
Having frozen in the winter in the UK when I was young; I can tell you without reservation that the perfect winter temperatures and the 95% humidity at 95oF for 3 summer months that I experience in Texas, is an enormous improvement.
Yours hoping we will soon return to an age of reason rather than one of belief.

I think there is definitely financial / establishment incentive to follow the preferred or current scientific thinking. However, a well trained scientist will always be skeptical and tend toward proving the null hypothesis and experimental reproducibility. But I do understand that even a scientist, at some level, will worry about his or her well being and family, before science.
I also think a problem occurs when a scientist uses the general media to put forward ideas. Whilst this is an improvement for the purposes of general discussion, the normal cyclic process of correction and review is short circuited to some degree. Scientific humility would go a long way to help this process along with the media avoiding sensationalism for profit (unlikely I think).
So, if we are going to discuss complex issues in the general media, (an idea I skeptically support) then we need to ensure that we “the public” have the tools to consider the scientific issues at hand. A healthy skepticism and the ability to consider all sources with some degree of rationality are needed.
I would be very happy to see a course at school titled something like “Logic and Skepticism – ain’t nothing to sniff at!” At the very least this may help people to distinguish propaganda and invective from scientific theory. Another aspect here is to instill the idea that theories do change and that they are not immutable.
Having said all that I am reminded of a comment by Douglas Adams “Man is so amazingly primitive that he still thinks that digital watches are a pretty neat thing”
On a subject more specific to this blog; have you heard if the predictions for cycle 24 are going to be “officially” lowered? I ask because the predictions I have seen said that June was the extreme end for the start of the high count prediction.

It’s one thing to discuss the relative low sunspot activity and have a general opinion that time will be the ultimate decider, but all you global warming deniers are ignorant…I’ve really had it with all of you. Here is a quote from NASA…”The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. ”
Hello…that was last year…what global cooling?
There will always be places that will experience record low temperatures and winter annomalies but that is expected if you have any knowledge of true climate change…. “2008 was the warmest March on record over land surfaces of the world and the second warmest overall worldwide”…that was this year. People who don’t understand glabal warming and climate change need to shut up.We will never solve the problems we face if the uninformed believe the ignorant…and they do!
This is Global Warming not OMG it snowed in Paris or last week was the coldest days I have expeinced where I live…If you think like that hang out all over the US where they are currently experiencing record heat and that is in many places but that is not the whole story…again…Global Warming.
With all that said, the sun could definately cause global cooling because it is our source of heat but until there is more evidence and more time we should live with the truth of today and the history of the last 100 or so years which have been well documented. Global warming is not a belief if is based on the facts and is most likely caused by humans because as far as we know nature doesn’t work in the range of hundereds of years (normally) but thousands and millions of years.
I do find the lack of sunspot activity interesting and will continue to follow the news because I am Interested in the effects it has on current climate change…maybe it will cool things down…which would be good because here in Houston it has been in the mid 90’s since the end of April and will probably continue till October…I would welcome some true global cooling.

I fully believe that we are affecting the sun. The increased use of solar panels being the cause of the problem. The enviromentalists are the ones that are causing the problem by inducing a negative feedback loop due to the conversion of the suns energy thus insuring less for everyone around. Way to go greenies. Ole’ Sol is not happy. We must have sacrifice, al gore, step up to the plate, you are causing this global catastrophe. What an inconvient boob.

Shoot, I live in the Southern US, and I’ve been turning off my AC overnight. I don’t turn it back on until about noon. I just open the windows and let the cool air in. Granted, it was a bit stuffy the past 3 or 4 days, but it’s raining again now. It’s very cool outside. I turned off the AC again. The environmentalists should all shout with glee.
It’s freaking July! It’s supposed to be mid to upper 90’s, at least compared to summers past. We’ve got watermelons being sold off the highway, that means summer is in full swing. I don’t need a scientist or NASA or some suck-ass politician to tell me the weather. It’s noticeably cooler. Everyone is talking about it here in my small town. We’re all cracking jokes about “global warming.” Nobody believes in it anymore. We’re mostly country folk. We believe what we see and feel, not what people a thousand miles away say, especially when those people are getting billions of dollars to do “research.”
“Global Warming” is a cult created by the wealthy. Ever notice how the lower members of this cult are filled with bile? How they quote other people, other statistics, but offer nothing original? And the people they quote are government shills or people on the government payroll (is that redundant?) They have nothing of their own to offer, so they just bully and shout and try to belittle anyone sheepish enough to listen.
“Global Warming” is a hoax to bring about a global tax. Mark my words, if the cooling period continues the tax will become about something else, possibly even “Global Icing” or “Global Pollution.” I’m just a hick in a small town, but I read and research. There is absolutely a push for global government and a system of global taxation. Do a little research on your own, look and see who’s pushing for it. The extrememly wealthy and powerful. I don’t pretend some massive secret cabal that involves aliens or other such nonsense. It’s about the same thing as always – money and power and control. Same garbage that’s been going on since the dawn.
Oh, and for the record, I am 100% interested in humans cleaning up their filth. We have really made a mess on this planet. I will not argue that. I get sick to my stomach at the litter and the waste, the poisoning and the rampant destruction. I do not doubt that industrial emissions effect our environment. I just don’t buy into the “Global Warming” hysteria. I don’t trust shallow evil men like Al Gore (I am NOT a Republican!) I’m much more concerned with the current genetic corruption of our food supplies, cross species experimentation, and war. And the current (massive) cooling trend and lack of sunspots is quite alarming.

“It is not certain that everything is uncertain.” Pascal (from wikipedia)
I think I like this guy.

Ok…putting all political ideology and scientific doctrine aside. My 1/2 acre of fingerling potatoes in Philadelphia Pa, turned off 16 days early. None of the usual factors explained the sudden completion of my potato crop. Suddenly, from July 25th on, it seemed we were 3-5 weeks later in the season. Looking for answers, I went to NOAA and learned all about solar cycles and the fact that we are in a deep extended minimum. I am not into commodities futures or speculating gas or oil, I just want to know what to expect for the 2009 growing season, (can’t eat gas or oil). All the talk about a Dalton minimum and ’18&frozen to death’ might be fun for all you anti-global warming geeks, ( I am one of those reformed Christian land stewardship type organic farmers who does’t give a rip about global warming), but all this talk is making me nervous. Tell me, do I plant tomatoes or carrots and parsnips next in 2009.

Sunspot cycle 24 is different from the last 7 cycles. An excellent article which can be found at http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html based on SIDC data shows why. The evidence since May when the paper was published supports their analysis. So the Noaa guy is wrong that this cycle is unusual but there is no evidence that this is a new maunder minimum… we would need data up to 2011 at least to make a judgement on this.

The Minimum solar Cycle 24 has arrived ,and the Sun seems Quiet down,and the Sunspots are fading away,but we often still see the Aurora Borealis sometime in a while,but it sparks by the Corona Holes that blows by the Gusty Solar winds,but they will not show on the Quiet sundisk,I think that why the reason why is the sun has the conveyor Belt is slowing it down,which is means that we are into Solar Minimum Cycle 24,and also the weather climate we may get much colder winter months,and In my Understandings are the Glacial Ice age caused by the Mauna solar minimum…not like in 2001 we had great big solar activity Lots of sunspots and the Summer month were so hot and muggy,and winter months were too warm not much Ice we had few years after the following years after 2001,2002,2003,2004,2005.until2006,the winter months gotten colder, but last winter we had good colder winter months due to the solar Minimum Cycle 24 has arriving,but this year’s winter will be bitterly colder down to -40 to -60 in the northern hemisphere…..,so if anyone want to chat here is my msn addy is nwood_3.0l@hotmail.com

so the Global cooling is coming that is means that we are getting colder winter months…..

your “global worming” also got put off with that telescope.

Hey guys — did you notice the new sunspot earlier this week?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/soho/sunspot_20080923.html
This image provided by NASA’s Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) shows a new sunspot, upper right, which after many weeks of a blank sun with no sunspots and very few sunspots this entire year, emerged Sept. 23, 2008. This new spot has both the magnetic orientation and the high-latitude position of a sunspot belonging to the new solar cycle, Cycle 24. (AP Photo/NASA/ESA)

Where is this subspot now? why NASA keeps euforic about that little sunspot which they anounced as the beginning of this stormy cycle 24? Cycle 24 will be very little. Why no-one admits that no-one don’t know nothing about our sun and nature…

Rob
So how do we get this on the front page of the MSM media?

Interesting comments. So, we now have a good excuse to keep on burning coal, using petroleum, cutting forests? Folks, all of these resources are finite in the long run and whether it is hot or cold, we are still going to have to come up with some other fuel sources. If we get a reprieve from global warning because of a “lttle ice age” we are just going to have to work that much harder to come up with survival strategies. Crowing about how Scientists will be fired, shot, etc. sure doesn’t help solve the potential of mass starvation due to crop failure if we are indeed entering a minimum. The data is so contradictory that frankly, no one can predict what will happen. We indeed live in the sun’s climate zone (I like that concept-makes us humble), but I know that the rest of humanity simply cannot live at the standard consumption rate of most of the people on this blog. So before you fire up that SUV or take that jet trip, just know that you are probably the last generation that can do so without limitation. Enjoy! (Kinda sucks for your kids/grandkids though).

Some talk about Human contributions of CO2.
Yet all the cattle in the world contribute how much CO2 ????

I don’t know… turning China into a billion person heavy footprint, versus the bicycle riding rural/agricultural giant they once were definitely adds to the degradation of the planet. If this global modernization can be done while also encouraging greatly recycling, organic growing of food… the impact would be significantly reduced.
As for the sunspots, looks like it could be a much smaller cycle than normal. Time will tell. Already, much of the US has had much below normal temperatures for much of 2008.

May I humbly submit the name “Algore Minimum”, for the coming Deep Freeze?

I think we are due for another Mass Extinction, not of animals either. Rather, population reduction of us. I suspect that this occurs at certain intervals on earth. Cycles, like 2012 and pole reversals, only with solar storms that will radiate earth with particles that will kill most of the planet. At least, it is my gut feeling, and is Never wrong.

I have just arrived at this discussion ‘table’. I am a converted biologist/palaeontologist and now disbelieving the ‘Warmists’ as do some of my associates. I have been very impressed with many of the serious and erudite contributions and I am so glad that there are some ‘brains’ out there! The sun’s activity issue is convincing me that the ‘Warmists’ are wrong. Like me, in the past, they seem not to have considered that the sun’s influence on the planet’s climate is a most important factor- has this been a mental block or am I [and them] just being ‘thick’? I have always been very wary of the importance placed on ‘man’s’ contribution towards global warming [now climate change!] on the grounds that experiment after experiment have shown that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main limiting factor in the process of photosynthesis on which the planet’s [our] food sources depend. Increase in carbon dioxide = increase in photosynthesis [carbon fixation] = increase in plant growth = increase in food production/growth in green plants = less starvation [if food production is handled correctly!]. Simplistic-yes! However,to be brief: Why are we being bombarded with Government perpetrated Warmist disinformation? Perhaps it is something to do with energy source conservation? There are limitations on the longevity of fossil fuels and their increased usage, so perhaps the vehicle being used to conserve fossil fuel sources is raising the false spectre of the dangers of global warming-the bandwagon progresses and can be stopped only when the real truth emerges. Keep up the good work!

One of the things that amazes me is the number of periods of completely spotless days over 20 consecutive days in the transition from Cycle 23 to Cycle 24. Over the last 18months there are 8 periods of greater than 20 spotless days. That’s 8 out of approximately 75 periods for the last 160 years in the last 18 months.
See website below.
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
DON G.