Excerpts printed below, see full story here (h/t to David Archibald)
Anne Minard for National Geographic News
May 4, 2009 A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth’s climate might respond.
The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.
…
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
…
Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
…
Changes in the sun’s activity can affect Earth in other ways, too.
For example, ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun is not bottoming out the same way it did during the past few visual minima.
“The visible light doesn’t vary that much, but UV varies 20 percent, [and] x-rays can vary by a factor of ten,” Hall said. “What we don’t understand so well is the impact of that differing spectral irradiance.”
Solar UV light, for example, affects mostly the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the effects are not as noticeable to humans. But some researchers suspect those effects could trickle down into the lower layers, where weather happens
FUN STUFF:
the star’s effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).
Ann Minard: If you see this, please look at the next picture:
http://www.giurfa.com/volcanes.jpg
It shows 9 (nine) volcanoes and 3(three) cities with a total population of more than 2 million people.
1.Do you see anyone of these two million people?
2.Do you see the cities?
3.Imagine all these people, apart of producing each 900 grams/day of CO2 by just exhalating, polluting with their cars and buses (most of them more than 10 years old, bought used from Japan, and using oil with 5,000 ppm od sulphur (this is real). Do you see any gases down there?
4.Just ONE of these volcanoes, the Huaynaputina, when erupted, back in the 18th.century, provoked this, in Europe:
http://www.giurfa.com/venice.jpg
5.How in your brain is it possible for you to even guess that those imperceptible molds that grow and multiply on the ground, which even do not color earth´s surface and which are called, by themselves of course, humans, can produce any detectable change in earth atmosphere, compared when one of these volcanoes decide to “exhale”?
Molon Labe (22:00:23) :
@Leon Brozyna (21:04:09) :
“If they get their cap and trade, any cooling will be attributed to it.”
Not i nice thought! But Russia, India and China is in no way going to lower their CO2. On the contrary. Therefore, the human outlet being reduced markedly is not going to happend, anf thus can never be used as excuse for cooling. Fortunately. No wonder Hansen and co are so anxious to get the Co2 reductions going…
If a decline in solar activity produces a continued decline global temperatures, the oceans will absorb CO2 at an increased rate. Warmists should rejoice.
Jeremy- I read the same thing. Swiftian in it’s subtlety.Things are like it’s the Renaissance/Reformation era all over again…
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
CO2 levels were also “a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal” in the early Holocene…http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5422/1971/F1
Maybe they don’t have a subscription to Science magazine?
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration
Friederike Wagner, 1 Sjoerd J. P. Bohncke, 2 David L. Dilcher, 3 Wolfram M. Kürschner, 1 Bas van Geel, 4 Henk Visscher 1
Science 18 June 1999:
Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1971
Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary
Dana L. Royer,1* Scott L. Wing,2 David J. Beerling,3 David W. Jolley,4 Paul L. Koch,5 Leo J. Hickey,1 Robert A. Berner1
Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2310 – 2313
DOI: 10.1126/science.292.5525.2310
CO2 concentrations determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores cannot be empirically tested to determine their accuracy in reflecting the atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the firn turned to ice.
Plant SI (Stomatal Index) data can be empirically tested under laboratory conditions. SI can be calibrated very closely to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. SI data suggest that warm periods in the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods routinely experienced CO2 levels of 330ppm to more than 360ppm.
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
CO2 levels were also “a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal” in the early Holocene.
Maybe they don’t have a subscription to Science magazine?
Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration
Friederike Wagner, 1 Sjoerd J. P. Bohncke, 2 David L. Dilcher, 3 Wolfram M. Kürschner, 1 Bas van Geel, 4 Henk Visscher 1
Science 18 June 1999:
Vol. 284. no. 5422, pp. 1971 – 1973
DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5422.1971
Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary
Dana L. Royer,1* Scott L. Wing,2 David J. Beerling,3 David W. Jolley,4 Paul L. Koch,5 Leo J. Hickey,1 Robert A. Berner1
Science 22 June 2001:
Vol. 292. no. 5525, pp. 2310 – 2313
DOI: 10.1126/science.292.5525.2310
CO2 concentrations determined from air bubbles trapped in ice cores cannot be empirically tested to determine their accuracy in reflecting the atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the firn turned to ice.
Plant SI (Stomatal Index) data can be empirically tested under laboratory conditions. SI can be calibrated very closely to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. SI data suggest that warm periods in the Tertiary and Quaternary Periods routinely experienced CO2 levels of 330ppm to more than 360ppm.
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
We’re already cooling from the solar minimum despite higher than expected CO2 output due to the rapid expansion in China and India.
So yes, the numbers he threw out there do help keep it in perspective. The sun’s influence is a few orders of magnitude more powerful than the influence of man made greenhouse gases. If the sun goes down a few hundredths of one percent it’s enough to swamp any human influence or signal.
Maybe someone should explain that to him.
“He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
“Preemptive denial.”??
HUH?? Galileo will be laughing in his grave.
Brings back memories, he says……
Chris
Norfolk, VA
Leif Svalgaard (04:52:19) :
Gary Plyler (23:22:58) :
Well, try this one. The sun has finally started to turndown after the Grand Maximum of the later 20th Century.
There are good reasons [as I have mentioned before] to believe that solar activity in the middle of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries were comparable. That is the perspective we need to keep.
Anthony, could we have a Leif post? His suggestion is a great one for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it might move minds to consider the wealth of other factors besides sunspots and barycenter movements. These seem to be intellectually too easy.
@Leif
Could you take a second to check out the resemblance between solar energy and sea level rise / year:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/divergence.gif
As I understrand you, differences in solar anergy does not have much impact on earth? So howcome the appearing link between solar emission and sea level rise / year (And Co2 rise per year, and PDOAMO curves etc etc?)
Lockean (06:15:54) :
They should. But it’s a good bet they’ll just turn around and scream about “ocean acidification,” instead. Seizing the high moral ground to beat up on others seems to be their goal in life.
““I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.””
Absolutely absurd statement….
It is interesting how perspective gets turned in its head. Calling the LIA an unusual cooling period, and local at that is peculiar. We are nearing the end of our interglacial period, where warm exists 10% of the time, so even the LIA was warmer than ‘normal’. Then the 50-60% more CO2 original-sin crap. Excuse me, but the IPCC claims humans put out 3-4% of the annual CO2, so even if we destroy the economy to ‘save the planet’ and cut all our CO2 emmissions to zero, it will have absolutely no effect on CO2 levels and therefore no effect on a CO2 drivel climate. (intentional mis-spelling of ‘driven’)
Now that’s weird. OT, but April UAH is out on Dr. Spencer’s blog
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
and it shows a significant drop, an anomaly of only +0.09! If that’s gonna stay, then not only is it remarkably different from RSS but also does not match to anything observed on AMSU-A during the month?!
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
John Finn (02:19:54) :
If Lockwood really wanted to get the AGW message across, he should have acknowledged that the sun might cause some cooling – then when there is no cooling he can point to the increasing effects of CO2.
As far as “painting themselves into a corner” (Robert Rust (20:52:27) : ) – what about the proponents of ’solar cooling’, what will their position be when there is no downturn in temperatures.
We’ll conclude our hypothesis was wrong. I’m not surprised you didn’t know. It’s a behaviour associated with something called the “Scientific Method.” Perhaps someone in England could explain it to Lockwood?
“I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said. “I think that helps keep it in perspective.”
No…this citation grossly distorts any type of “keeping it in perspective” whatsoever:
For a scientist to go on record comparing/contrasting or attempting to offset CO being “above normal” [whatever “normal” is on a 4.5 billion year timescale!] against the current decline in solar activity…seems stupid and a futile exercise from the starting gate and is like trying to compare apples….to baseball gloves.
The sun, comprising 99% of the mass in the solar system, is slightly larger [LOL] than our earth….so any slight change in the sun MAY affect us on a scale and many orders of magnitude higher than CO2 [that mechanism still unproven]
So his quote is such a bogus BOGUS juxtaposition of words even the biggest science idiot [me LOL] can see it.
Will wait for the day when they start blaming the quiet sun on CO2…but they don’t want to appear to be stark raving mad so I know they will not go that far.
Definition “lunacy”: “Archaic. Intermittent mental derangement associated with the changing phases of the moon.”
Suggest NEW term: “SOLACY”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Correction: “CO2”.
My “solacy” kicking in.
Aroooooo!
Looking at AMSU-A I would have rather predicted April UAH to be +0.19 than 0.09 …
“….whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down,” Lockwood said.”
Straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel! He doesn’t take in to account the size of the sun and how a small change in something that size can have a large effect on something the size of the earth.
comparison :
http://www.worldinvisible.com/apologet/images/sun_earth_size_comparison.jpg
Leon, Leon. Don’t you know? It’s all about the Alchemy and the Entrails of the climate models.
I have serious problems with scientists like Mike Lockwood who keep the ball of the climate blame game in the field of human causes.
He serves a doctrine based on lies. And we know it.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/05/miklos-zagoni-explains-miskolczis.html
Sorry, one last time on this other topic. Dr. Spencer has his own explanation for the discrepancy between RSS and UAH here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
But I think that this still does not explain the discrepancy with AMSU-A daily data…
For the first time, I think I have something interesting to offer on the subject!
Many of you may be aware of Rhodes W. Fairbridge’s paper on King-Hele Cycle. I was not, and I’m finding it fascinating.
Thanks to my colleague Arch Crawford.
Check it out if you have time:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/Fairbridge-ClimateandKeplerianPlanetaryDynamics.htm
Preemptive denial, that’s quite a change from the usual preemptive exxageration ( 2 – 4 degrees Centigrade by 2100).
That CO2 is 50 to 60% higher doens’t mean a thing.
50 to 60% of nothing is still nothing.
“preemptive denial”
Bart Simpson could learn a thing or two from these guys!