Sun today – still blank. We are approaching a spotless month of August, 2 days to go.
Here at WUWT, I’ve touched on almost every point in this article below, here are some links for you to review in addition to the piece from Mr. Lawson. – Anthony
Keenlyside Paper and HP filtering of HadCRUT
Livingston and Penn – Sunspots may vanish by 2015
David Hathaway – What’s wrong with the Sun? (Nothing)
by: Mark S. Lawson, Online Opinion, Australia
Who has noticed that the period 2014-2015 keeps on turning up in the debate on greenhouse science? For that is when greenhouse proponents say the long-delayed global warming apocalypse will start happening. In addition, that general date has turned up in forecasts made by an arch sceptic, and two researchers in the US have forecast that sunspot activity will cease entirely by 2014.
As the two sides do not agree on anything else at all this is odd – odd enough to be worth exploring.
One group to point at the 2015 date is led by Noel Keenlyside of the Leibnitz Institute of Marine Science in the German city of Kiel. As reported in the journal Nature (letters, May 1) Keenlyside and colleagues added the affect of climate cycles to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models to forecast that global temperatures will remain stable or perhaps even dip down for the next few years, before heading up. The paper does not give a date for the expected kick up in temperatures but in a subsequent interview with the Daily Telegraph in the UK Keenlyside stated that the earth will start to warm again in 2015.
More recently, another group observing the sun has also come up with the date 2014 but for quite different reasons. As has been noted a few times in the media, the sun has gone quiet – too quiet – with the next solar cycle so far not putting in an appearance. Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle. At its height, indicated by lots of sunspots, the sun is very active giving off lots of flares and solar storms which affect satellites. At the bottom of the cycle there are few or no spots, and a marked lack of activity.
The last cycle was officially declared over by NASA in March 2006 with one group at the space agency putting out a release confidently forecasting that the next cycle would be 20 to 50 per cent stronger than the old.
The sun responded to this piece of scientific hubris by going quiet. A few spots from the new cycle have been sighted, as well as a few spots from the old – scientists can tell which spots the cycle belongs to by their magnetic polarity – but very little has happened.
At the time of writing the sun is still spot free. NASA solar physicist David Hathaway points out, quite rightly, that the sun’s behaviour is within major statistical limits – just. The average solar cycle lasts 131 months plus or minus 14 months and the current cycle – the quiet period counts as part of the old cycle – has lasted nearly 143 months. The solar cycle went quiet for years at the beginning of last century before restarting, Hathaway notes, so nothing out of the ordinary has happened – at least, not yet.
Another group at the US National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, William Livingston and Matthew Penn, believe that there may be a deeper process at work. Sunspots are highly magnetic regions that are somewhat cooler than the rest of the sun’s surface (they appear dark compared to the rest of the sun, but if seen separately would appear very bright) and the two researchers have been tracking both the temperature and magnetic strength of the spots. They found that the spots have been warming up and becoming less magnetic. An average of the trend is a straight line going down which hits the bottom of the graph at 2014. They have concluded that, although sun spots may appear briefly from time to time in the next few years, they will disappear by 2014.
This conclusion is in a paper submitted to the journal Science three years ago but rejected in peer review. With the sun now so quiet the paper has been resurrected from a filing cabinet in the observatory and circulated informally. Dr Livingston told me (by phone from his office in Tucson) that the paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was a purely statistical argument so it would be better to wait and see what happened, and he considered that a fair point. They are now waiting “for the right moment” to resubmit.
But what happens after 2014? Dr Livingston says that as they are using a purely statistical argument, without any theory to back it, they do not know. All they know is that the trend reaches zero in 2014. Conventional theory on the sun’s inner workings never forecast anything like this – in fact, forecast the exact opposite – but has been revised to say that the sun will restart some time next year.
With the sun being quiet for a surprisingly long time, plenty of commentators are pointing to the possibility of a Maunder Minimum – a period from 1645 to 1715 with very few sunspots which is associated with a series of bitter winters known as the Little Ice Age. Although it is widely acknowledged that there must be some link between the sun’s activity and climate, the nature of the link and its effectiveness is hotly debated. The IPCC models, the ruling orthodoxy, gives star billing to the effect of industrial gases in the atmosphere and places solar variations in the also ran category. However, as we shall see those models have proved largely useless for forecasting – in the short term, at least – and there are no rival climate theories. The sceptics largely decline to forecast, pointing out, with some justification as it turns out, that there is as yet no means of forecasting what the sun will do.
read the remainder of the article here
I am still amazed that people ignore the obvious connection between the sun and climate. It only stands to reason – if the amount of energy coming from the sun changes, climate will change. Am I being overly simplistic?
My range is twenty to a hundred years before we start warming up. Twenty if the sun resumes it’s usual 20th Century behaviour and the PDO predominates, and a hundred years if we’re headed toward a Grand Minimum.
=========================================
“I am still amazed that people ignore the obvious connection between the sun and climate.” John Miller
Being counter-intuitive is hip among pseudo-sophisticates. It shows they can ignore the obvious. A form of rebellion that probably goes back to the Garden of you know where.
As I stated in an earlier thread, Dr Hansen is part of the AGW Tipping Point crowd. Just last year he again warned that we are less than a decade from the point of no return concerning GHGs and runaway positive feedbacks. Since his timeframe is measured in months (less than 120), I think Anthony should continue to highlight anecdotal evidence to the contrary. This, of course is weather and not climate, but Hansen and his crowd have opened up the Pandora’s Box.
As far as the Sun and Climate, the Maunder and Dalton Minimums coorelate to rather obvious drops in global temps based on proxy and ancecdotal evidence; however, the LIA actually began sometime around 1300-1320 and continued until 1850. The LIA didn’t begin with a bang, but was a steady but uneven drop in global temps. Dr Fagan believed it began in Europe around 1318 with the disasterous rains from April to September. The coldest decades of the LIA occured three hundred years later with the Maunder Minimum. The greatest growth of the Franz Josef Glacier occured during the 17th and 18th Centuries, as did the glaciers in the Alps. But NAmerica saw one of its worst draughts during this period -mainly in the Tidewater States.
The next decade will be very interesting.
I thought 2012 was the end of the world.
John Miller : I think that you are being overly simplistic. Testing has shown that the energy the earth receives from the sun does not change significantly between the solar maximum and minimum. The theory is related to the wakening of the sun’s heliospher, allowing more cosmic rays to interact with our atmosphere, producing more high altitude cloud cover, which then blocks the sun.
“the powerful Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMO) climate cycle”
Umm, AMO is “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation,” He’s referring to the MOC.
“The last cycle was officially declared over by NASA in March 2006”
I didn’t look for a reference, but cycle 23 was still active, at least up to the last sunspeck or sunspot. Cycle 24 has started, the series transition from cycle 23 to 24 hasn’t been declared yet and won’t be until at least 6 months after the fact.
Oh well, not major errors, in fact the rest is quite good for an “e-journal of social and political debate”.
I’m holding out for 2016, primarily because I wrote web pages titled “1816: The Year without a Summer” and “2016: The [Next] Year without a Summer”. Maybe the oceans will still be cooling through 2014/2015 and I’ll get lucky. Or frozen.
Jeff – I know that’s the theory, but I guess what I’m thinking about is something I saw on PBS last year where a climate scientist said that changes in the sun over the cycle would “only” change the energy reaching the ground by 0.2% and have no impact on global temperatures. I couldn’t understand how she reached this conclusion unless that was part of her theory of climate. Sort of like Adam Savage – “I reject your reality and subsitute my own.”
I liked the writing in that article a lot. It captured the uncertainties in science in a much better way than 99% of the science writing does. If only climate researchers would to talk to reporters in these terms, we could avoid the whole skeptic/warmer nonsense.
The Sun certainly has cycles.
It has at least an 11 year cycle (or 22 years for a complete magnetic cycle). Going by the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum, there are other longer-term cycles as well.
The Modern Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period, the Dark Ages and the Roman Warm Period add further evidence that there are cycles in the Sun’s activity.
The problem is we can’t really forecast these cycles very well at all. (See NASA, March 2006 ….. the climate warm and cool periods are not regular enough …. the solar scientists do not agree on the cycles …. etc. etc. ).
I hate “Wait and See” when decades are involved.
“I thought 2012 was the end of the world.” BarryW
It would be nice if we could stall it. The end will come but hopefully not on my watch.
I feel on very solid ground in reiterating my forecast of a very cold winter of 2008-2009.
We’ve “paid for it” already with the recent solar activity – Cycle 23 already 12 years long and counting, major indices – PDO, AO, AMO, NAO, etc. – already in their cold phases or heading that way; a cooling trend for about the past ten years still in progress.
If we’re lucky, we’ll just have a few harsh winters that’ll educate them young whippersnappers who were too young to have experienced the 1970s, and that will also either chill the “AGW” hype, or at least cause the spin to become entertainingly creative.
If we’re not lucky, and this is something deeper and longer term –
all I can say is that I personally have no plan yet, and my readiness is about that of society in general.
Jeff,
“The theory is related to the wakening of the sun’s heliospher, allowing more cosmic rays to interact with our atmosphere, producing more high altitude cloud cover, which then blocks the sun.”
Surely, Svensmark’s hypothesis is that the increasing cosmic ray penetration produces more LOW clouds.
From the article: “Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle.”
I do believe 11 years is the average and cycles can be from 9 – 13 years in length. I also remember reading an article that was supplied by a link on this blog several weeks ago concerning longer cycles that overlay the traditional 11 year cycles. Those cycles were either 44 or 66 years I believe. Unfortunately I did not make any notes or save the linked article.
You’re thinking of 2012-12-21, the Mayan anniversary of the creation of the world. The world last ended eight years ago when European calendars ticked over to 000.
John Miller (08:59:59) : I saw on PBS last year where a climate scientist said that changes in the sun over the cycle would “only” change the energy reaching the ground by 0.2% and have no impact on global temperatures. I couldn’t understand how she reached this conclusion
Based upon the visible variablility of the Sun, this is correct. It’s the stock answer from the AGW folk. However, I think it’s probable that something other than visible radiation is the key to Earth’s weather. Things that aren’t normally included in that 0.2% variability like changes changes in the solar wind perhaps.
John Miller (08:59:59) : I saw on PBS last year where a climate scientist said that changes in the sun over the cycle would “only” change the energy reaching the ground by 0.2% and have no impact on global temperatures. I couldn’t understand how she reached this conclusion
Based upon the visible variability of the Sun, this is correct. It’s the stock answer from the AGW folk. However, I think it’s probable that something other than visible radiation is the key to Earth’s weather. Things that aren’t normally included in that 0.2% variability like changes changes in the solar wind perhaps.
I think the one solar cycle that gets overlooked is the 400 year Gliessberg Cycle. It has roughly a 200 year positive and a 200 year negative cylce. The last 200 year negative cycle ended about 1820 with the ending of the Dalton Minimum. Both the Dalton and Maunder Minimums occured during the last negative cycle. However, the Sporer Minimum preceeded the beginning of the last negative cycle. The physical explainations concerning solar activty and climate are still wide open for debate. The Russians have thier ideas, and the West has contrary ones. Thus far, the Russians have been warning the world about a forecasted solar minimum and an attendent amount of global cooling for almost 5 years now.
John -X,
Thus far it appears that the European long range forecast models agree with your thinking. Accuweather has blogs which discuss long range seasonal model outputs. The same guy who runs thier AGW blog also has another one for Canada, which he discusses both short and long range models. For the autumn of 2008-2009, the Euro ECN model has primairily zonal flow with some weak amplification of high level ridging along the Rockiers. But, by very early Jan 2009, a strong cell of high pressure aloft wil build along the entire NAmerican Rockies, with a deep polar vortex over Hudson Bay. This scenario remains through Feb 2009. If the model is accurate, about 1/2 of the Eastern US will see very frigid weather spill out of the Artic source regions with plenty of snow -esp the Great Lakes.
It would be ironic if on Inaugeration Day, DC gets hit with a massive blow of artic air. The obvious downside will be the Jan and Feb heating bills.
“that the paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was a purely statistical argument so it would be better to wait and see what happened, and he considered that a fair point”
This is a better man than me. All of the forecasts, that come to mind, follow “purely statistical argument”. He can’t do anything about the forces on the ground and is pleasant anyway.
His reward will wait.
To think, it is only four years ago sunspots were claimed to be at a 1000 year high.
Ooops! Not sure how I got a double post. I was editting the post and somehow it got submitted before (and after) I was finished. How’d that happen?
One of them should be deleted. I vote the first (DAV (10:09:32) ) for the honor.
Sorry about that.
Yes, low cloud cover, not high clouds.
Svensmark’s paper is available for viewing here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/338170/svensmark-2007cosmoclimatology
Question: For those of us who are convinced that the coming winter will be brutal, what is the best financial play? Agriculture futures?
“I feel on very solid ground in reiterating my forecast of a very cold winter of 2008-2009.”
Gosh, you are just all sweetness and light today! The AGW crowd is chirping about how La Nina conditions have flown away and clear skies are on their way. How can you be so morbid in the face of such infective optimism?
You don’t suppose an equatorial remix is in the works and the current neutral move will end by NH winter?
I think some of the “Global Warmers” are trying to anticipate events based on sunspots and make their predictions accordingly. In other words, they will predict that global warming will start again at a time when the sun’s activity should produce an increase in temperature and then Al Gore can claim that he invented the sun.
SRES A1b scenario:
2.2. Numerical Experiments
….”The baseline simulation period is 1950-2100. For the his-
torical part (1950-2000) the concentrations of greenhouse
gases (GHG) and tropospheric sulfate aerosols are specified
from observations, while for the future part (2001-2100) they
follow the SRES A1b scenario (Nakicenovic et al., 2000).
Stratospheric aerosols from volcanic eruptions are not taken
into account, and the solar constant is fixed. The runs are
initialized from a long run in which historical GHG con-
centrations have been used until 1950. Different ensemble
members are generated by disturbing the initial state of the
atmosphere. Gaussian noise with an amplitude of 0.1 K
is added to the initial temperature field. The initial ocean
state is not perturbed”.
http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/essence_a_v4.1_paper.pdf
I thought ……..(04 november/2008) ….. the end of the world
Dr Livingston is quoted: “…the paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was a purely statistical argument so it would be better to wait and see what happened, and he considered that a fair point. ”
If I am reading this paper correctly, the years plotted through 2005 / 2006 show observations (data), and forward years are represented to be linear extrapolation(s).
1) If this is unworthy science, perhaps we must revisit charts of temperature versus CO2.
2) If statistics of observations (data) are not worthy to be published, then perhaps we should revoke the publications of astronomical observations up to, but not including Newton.
3) We could then reject Newton and the gravity theory on the basis of no evidence and no mechanism, and all float off to Never-Never land.
Anthony
I have been working on trying to relate the area under the TSI curve (Leif’s data) to temperature, which I believe is a different way of looking at the data. I have divided the TSI curve up into 16 year intervals back to 1703 and compared the result to CET (running average 16 years) and Hadcrut temperatures. The result is rather interesting. However, there are a few inconsistencies because I believe I am having difficulty using the ImageJ program (thanks for the link, by the way) with the graph from Excel. Would you be interested in the work (in Excel) I’ve done so far? How could I send it to you? By the way, have you ever set the base period of temperature to back in the 1700s and done the graphs (after all we are coming out of a little ice age aren’t we? – LOL). Gives an different perspective to the temperature change in the 20th century.
REPLY: Check your email – Anthony
Dr Livingston also quotes Science as saying: “…so it would be better to wait and see what happened….”
Unfortunately, political exploitation of the AGW concept is not waiting. By 2014, we may be locked into a variation of the Soviet-style Turnover Tax (aka Carbon Credits, Cap and Trade).
Given the multiple indications, of which this article is but one, the “Precautionary Principle” would suggest that we get the science right before we destroy out ability to mitigate or adapt.
“The average solar cycle lasts 131 months plus or minus 14 months and the current cycle – the quiet period counts as part of the old cycle – has lasted nearly 143 months. The solar cycle went quiet for years at the beginning of last century before restarting, Hathaway notes, so nothing out of the ordinary has happened – at least, not yet.”
If things stay the same when can we say something out of the ordinary has happened?
John Miller (08:59:59)
Lets take a look at that.
Lets just say the sun switched off entirely, just sayin’.
Do you think the cooling would be 0.2% ??
Somehow I think not.
So many of these AGW argumnets don’t pass either the “common sense” test or the “scratch and sniff” test.
Everything in science needs to pass these tests or it is just “Ouijaboard, in a dark closet, With A Six Pack” — merely “OWASP” donchaknow
The theory is related to the wakening of the sun’s heliospher
=================
Perhaps you meant weakening? Let’s not anthropomophize this any more than we have to. ;*)
“Scientists have known for a very long time that the earth has a distinct 11-year cycle.”
dont you mean the sun as 11 year cycles?
Actually according to any number of net nutjobs, the world is supposed to end pretty much every year…
It would be interesting to consider the Zeroth law of thermodynamics here.
Could we find a correlation between the upper atmosphere temperature variations with coronal mass ejection?
My point here is that the amount of radiation being absorbed on earth is one thing and is related to the infrared and visible spectrum mainly and those vary with the intensity of the sun and cloud cover.
But also, the rate of heat rejection not only depends on the cloud cover and concentration of greenhouse gases (water being the most abundant!), but the rate of heat transfer to space also depends on the surrounding of the earth. During coronal mass ejection (i.e. during intense solar activity or coronal holes), huge quantities of hot plasma gas go pass us (and surrounds us). During mass ejection, the concentration is higher than at regular solar activity. This rate of heat transfer must be measurable and could be correlated to mass ejection phenomena.
2014 or 2015??? That beats my forecast of 2010.5 to get a 14 yr minima to minima trigger loaded for a real Minimum. 2014.5 will get us a whopping 18 yr minima to minima, and the maxima to maxima trigger is almost guaranteed.
Still, in a named Minimum, it’s going to take decades to reach full effect.
Meanwhile, the Artic Sea ice is on track to equal or exceed last years melt with 3 full weeks to go in the melt window. For a Sun dereft of Sunspots, the melting is making a statement all of it’s own. No need to drag Al Gore into it, it’s just plain happening.
The really interesting part would be if the new Minimum (should it actually occur) actually made a dent in the recent retreat of glacial and Polar ice. If it does, ‘whew’, that was close.
If it doesn’t, well, hope all you scientist types have an atmopheric miracle dimming plan ready to roll. Just don’t get carried away and start nuking too many volcanoes, please.
I’d like to see somebody plot this newfound warming/magnetic weakening over time to stack up to the heretofore useless 243 yr. cycle. The Sun has a lot to teach us young students.
REPLY: Why not do it yourself? If you want to learn something that is the best way.
Kirk – not sure if you understood what I was asking. If solar variation is +/-0.2% on the ground (I don’t know for sure if it is, that’s what the lady on PBS said) when taken across the entire surface of the planet, is it possible to dismiss the potential for that having an effect on climate? Is it possible to dismiss it and be intellectually honest?
If, and I know this is big if, we are headed into a new long term cooling period do to lack of sun spots, I vote to call it Gore Minimum.
Has low cloud cover started to increase?
Chris (10:41:19) :
I’d suggest heating oil futures. It’s a big, liquid market. But caution is in order when playing any futures market. You’re attempting to predict the future, right? That’s never easy. But if you’re still determined, keep in mind that this coming winter’s weather is already factored into the price, and in order to profit [assuming you’re long the market], there will have to be a significantly colder winter than is generally expected, or an unforeseen event [like a new war in the Middle East, etc]. OTOH, a McCain victory along with simply the discussion of new drilling could result in declining prices despite the weather. Also, weather patterns could result in the northeast being unexpectedly warm, even if the planet’s climate continues to cool. You’re making a bet on the future. You never know for sure.
I’ve played these markets. I bet on interest rate spreads in the ’80’s. Made a lot of money on my first several trades. Thought I had it figured out. Next trade I bet even more money, and lost everything I’d made and then some. It’s not for sissies.
Keep in mind that futures are a zero-sum game. For every dollar made by someone, someone else loses a dollar. It’s not like the stock market, where if you buy the right company, and the company grows year after year, everybody makes money. Futures is win-lose. Very few win consistently over time.
Also, use options on futures. You can at least limit the risk to your bet. On raw futures, your risk is unlimited. Good luck.
.2% per year over 30 years if cumulative would be 6%. That can be significant.
.2% per year over 60 years would be 12%. That could be devastating.
Unfortunately, we may not have significant global measurements to compare pre-21st century CO2 levels with 19th century CO2 levels if we do get another Dalton Minimum.
We may not learn all we can.
“Actually according to any number of net nutjobs, the world is supposed to end pretty much every year…” Jeff Alberts
Well, they are party right, the world DOES end for quite a few people every year.
[…] And poster, kim, on Watts Up With That? gives: “My range is twenty to a hundred years before we start warming up. Twenty if the sun […]
on the site spaceweather, we can see every day since long time “sun is blank no sunspot”, “sun is blank no sunspot”. sun go on a news minimum of dalton, its certainly
previsions of ips australian have change but stay very optimistic:
http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
the global cooling will be begin
scuse for my english but im french lol
Off topic but interesting anyway- a new paper in Greophysical Research Letters:
Magnetic effect on CO2 solubility in seawater: A possible link between geomagnetic field variations and climate. Authors- Alexander Pazur & Michael Winklhofer
Abstract
Correlations between geomagnetic-field and climate parameters have been suggested repeatedly, but possible links are controversially discussed. Here we test if weak (Earth-strength) magnetic fields can affect climatically relevant properties of seawater. We found the solubility of air in seawater to be by 15% lower under reduced magnetic-field (20 μT) compared to normal field conditions (50 μT). The magnetic-field effect on CO2 solubility is twice as large, from which we surmise that geomagnetic field variations modulate the carbon exchange between atmosphere and ocean. A 1% reduction in magnetic dipole moment may release up to ten times more CO2 from the surface ocean than is emitted by subaerial volcanism. This figure is dwarfed in front of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Published 30 August 2008.
Cheer, Rob R
Ric Werme: The referenced Keenlyside et al letter to “Nature”, titled “Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector”, never uses the term Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or the initials AMO. They use Atlantic meridional overturning circulation or some variation thereof. Another distinction about the Keenlyside letter is that they don’t calculate the variability in North Atlantic SST using the standard method for the AMO, which is basically North Atlantic SST anomaly minus Global SST anomaly. Keenlyside uses Atlantic dipole. This they define in the narrative for their Figure 3: “b, Atlantic SST dipole index (60–10W, 40–60N minus 50–0W, 40–60S SST area averages), which is constructed to isolate MOC forced SST fluctuations from radiatively forced variations…”
What’s the difference? From 1900 to present, the only real difference is the amplitude of the oscillation. The Atlantic SST dipole varies about 2.75 times as much as the AMO.
http://i33.tinypic.com/sbpmjc.jpg
I’ve scaled the two and their almost identical (not shown). I’ll post on this later today or tomorrow at my blogspot.
Bibliographical note. The French historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie wrote a book on late medieval climate titled (in English translation) __Times of Feast, Times of Famine__.
Ladurie leans heavily on records of vintage for Western Europe, which date back, in the case of some vineyards, to the thirteenth c.
The Kayak Man [wanting to save the AGW World] has been blogging for months/years about paddling his kayak to the North Pole from Spitsbergen.
The other day his blog changed to paddling into the ‘Arctic Ice Pack’.
Geographical North Pole not mentioned. So Mr Lewis Gordon Pugh what is
the point [other than self gratification and Al Gore sycophancy] of your trip?
Robert
Have a look at Climateaudit.org for more detail on Artic melt this year. Will not be as little left as 2007.
And someone here said that science is common sense. I’m afraid that is as wrong as you can get. I suggest an in dept read of quantum mechanics an atomic theory. Long, long way from common sense.
John
If you are french shouldn’t votre nom etre Noel. 🙂
‘If things stay the same when can we say something out of the ordinary has happened?’
The long pause and the failure of SC24 to advance itself means things have not stayed the same as the cycles of the 20th century. The isolated and weak sunspots that rarely appear these days plus the total lack of activity in the other indicatiors means something out of the ordinary IS happening.
Two bum cycles coming right up, would you like to SuperSize that order?
‘I hate “Wait and See” when decades are involved.’
Not to worry, the 243 yr cycle plus everything else that is happening says that this is it: We get Minimum.
And here is insult to injury:
‘A 1% reduction in magnetic dipole moment may release up to ten times more CO2 from the surface ocean than is emitted by subaerial volcanism. This figure is dwarfed in front of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.’
So that is why the Arctic Sea Ice is on pace to break last years record melt: You have Industrial CO2 plus Magnetic Release CO2. That’s also why 1988 was the hottest on record.
Salt is hereby rubbed in the wounds.
I hate minimalists. They never to try to warn anybody about anything.
Not now, I’m in the middle of a Rothchilds!
I’d rather pack up and escape a Hurricane than sit there oblivious to what’s coming.
So, does this mean the Poles melt but we get to freeze our tootsies off a la Maunder?
Probably. Just remember that Winter is still the abscence of Sun, global warming or cooling.
[…] But maybe not. Maybe the sunspots are not coming back in the foreseeable future. Maybe we’re in for global cooling like we have never seen before. Maybe the Farmer’s Almanac is right, and we are in for a cold winter. Maybe we are in for even more than that. After all, the Maunder Minimum, an extended low in sunspot activity coincided with the so-called “little ice age” of the late 1600’s. Of course, there is no reason to believe that we are in such a pattern… or is there. […]