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
I love it!
50% of a completely irrelevant trace gas is meaningful
But a fraction of 1% of something massively powerful is nothing
Mike Lockwood is a mathematical moron.
“In general, recent research has been building a case that the sun has a slightly bigger influence on Earth’s climate than most theories have predicted.”
R U serious??? In National Geographic. That’s like a local weather report saying:
“Later today there will be periods of darkness, it will get colder, followed by light again around 6 AM followed by a temporary warming trend.”
Total insanity.
Leif did thusly screed:
Leif, I’ll review those links when I get a chance, thanks much!
I very much enjoy dropping by Jan Janssens’ Solaemon website & watch the steady progression of the spotless days evolution graph. ( http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution ). This ongoing trend established its track early & looked to start edging toward the lower 2nd SD of SC’s #10 – 15 (which it has… ;-).
Now to my layman’s eyes, Janssens’ chart has continued to speak volumes about a change in solar regime & Jan provided an excellent predictive trendcasting instrument. No hindcasting required!
Now why the heck Nat’l Geo & NASA can’t cover the sun as well as Janssens can, beats me! I know historical trendcasting isn’t the end all to be all, but by golly Janssens has kept hitting home runs with that chart.
On the other note, WRT to facular UV & the LIA, one of my quibbles with Drew Shindell’s study is the question of maritime winters. The historical record I believe shows – perhaps anecdotally – that the British Isles endured some very harsh winters during the LIA as well and yet Shindell’s study established the claim that the decline of maritime trade winds during winter had its dominant effect in continental interiors. So wouldn’t island nations have been exempt from such a modest decline in the trades?
Thanks again….
Looks like STEREO has turned up a rather large Cycle 24 spot coming into view. Should be visible from Earth in a few days if it survives long enough.
leebert (11:40:59) :
I very much enjoy dropping by Jan Janssens’
Yes, Jan runs a nice site. I don’t particularly like the spotless days graph as it misstates the variability of this. On pages 6 and 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf I have plotted each cycle separately and it is very hard [for me, at least] to see the split into low cycles and high cycles. The variation is just too great. There is, of course, no doubt that there are many spotless days right now.
On the other note, WRT to facular UV & the LIA, one of my quibbles with Drew Shindell’s study
The whole of that study is marred [and all conclusion suspect] by Shindell’s use of Hoyt%Schatten’s obselote TSI reconstruction.
“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.
*********************************************************************
But if CO2 is 50-60% higher and solar output is down so insignificantly, then that should mean temperatures should still be going up, not down.
Yet again, global warming theory fails its own test.
Jeremyj5000,
Isloated sunspecks/spots tell us little of when the minimum will end and to suggest that these islolated sunspecks/spots have in your words ‘shot down’ the theory of a prolonged period of cooling is perhaps premature to say the least, the phrase ‘shot down’ could be used IF solar activity suddenly ramps up quickly but not before I think.
You seem keen on telling us that your local area has seen changes proving man made global warming yet you omit to tell us what these local changes consist of, many here have noticed the very opposite of warming in their own areas and yet you seem to accuse them all of being wrong while you are right?
The climate changes, it has always changed and it will always change, we exist and thrive in a state of change, the earth does not recognise climate stasis and neither do we.
The earths regions heat up and cool down, they experience often drastic changes then revert back to previous states, the planet enjoys what may be termed a natural cyclic climate variation based on its cyclic cosmic journey round the sun which travels round the galaxy which travels through the universe. There is still no solid proof that a trace gas in the atmosphere has any effect on earths climate and even the IPCC has not found the causal link.
The fossil record is full of clear evidence of huge changes in earths climate and there is some evidence that solar minimums and maximums have a direct correlation with warming and cooling cycles, you mention in passing that anyone who doesnt see the world through your eyes has their ‘heads in the sand’?
Can you follow the accusation with some facts to back up your case please, would you care to expand on your theory of local changes proving AGW/MMCC and would you expain further as to why you feel confident that the current solar minimum will soon end?
You seem to pronounce that anyone who doesnt see the link between natural climate cycles and a supposed man made runaway global warming caused by the emission of a harmless trace gas is somehow mentally ill “needs their heads examining”? Are you a mental health professional with suitable qualifications to pronounce who is mentally ill based on their opinions on issues of science?
May I ask you to reconsider your position and return with a more reasoned and rational argument please, if you have evidence then please present it so we may consider your wisdom and make our own free choices as what to believe.
You know, when I read through all the comments here, I thought you guys were exaggerating and kidding with the whole “pre-emptive denial” thing…
Then I clicked the story link.
Oh my god… I think we’ve essentially already started diving into a new dark age (socially anyway) when major publications are saying that scientists are pulling that sh*t.
AGW spin
(from Windmills of your mind)
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind
jeremyj5000 (09:43:27) :
Also: anyone who has lived in the same area long enough to have seen the climate change and still does not believe that it is doing so needs to have their head examined, as I believe they will find it firmly stuck in the sand of [snip].
Today, May 5th, in Athens Greece, my apartment building turned on the heat tonight. It is the first time in my lifetime this has happened, and I am 69 yrs old. Heating is stopped the first week of April usually.
So yes, there is a change to cooler at the moment. The sea surface anomaly also has 1.5 degrees cooler for the Mediterranean in my region. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
How is this for anecdotal?
Jeremy, I could not agree more. I was taught in my high school civics class that what made free societies superior to totalitarian regimes is that we believed “the end does not justify the means”. It appears that this civic lesson has been long lost on our recent crop of scientists and journalists. Does anyone in the AGW community have the courage to stand up and do what is right?
I doubt it would be Gavin Schmidt who censors comments when they are too logical to dispute and run contrary to his agenda. It certainly looks like it will never be Mr. Lockwood either.
Jeremy (06:05:57) :
So the AGW crowd are now the “denialists”!
Haven’t they been that all the time? They have been denying natural climate variability in general and the LIA in particular. They have denied nature’s influence and replaced it by man(n)!
Cassandra King (12:04:00) :
Jeremyj5000,
Iolated sunspecks/spots tell us little of when the minimum will end and to suggest that these islolated sunspecks/spots have in your words ’shot down’ the theory of a prolonged period of cooling is perhaps premature to say the least, the phrase ’shot down’ could be used IF solar activity suddenly ramps up quickly but not before I think.
As I have noted, there are good reasons to believe that solar activity [and geomagnetic activity] in the past (e.g. 1845-1875, or back in the 1770-1780s] was as vigorous as during the 20th century. Most people [and researchers] believe that the temperatures in the earlier periods were considerably lower than during the 20th century, so perhaps the solar connection is not so strong as assumed by many [especially as counterweight to AGW].
AGW spin
(from Windmills of your mind)
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind
All because of the dizziness caused by rejecting CO2. When properly exhaled part of it must remain in the lungs. They are in need of CO2!! 🙂
Or…perhaps, because, other stuff they surely inhale,
whitish in colour,
from hidden jungles brought
secret polluters they are!
cause for these strange powders to get
fossil fuels ought to use
and sulphuric acid,
and CO2 of limestone out,
and many logs, many forests, burn
for their fears to appease
and whether in science
or politics, succeed.
Alan the Brit (09:54:30) :
Sorry no direct link for me either.
Try going back on to climaterealist.com. The first page should have a You Tube clip of Senator Inhofe running for 23min 13 secs. Scroll down to bottom of page & click on p2. There are a series of mini clips of several of the speakers, but there is one that says ‘watch the hole thing’!
Hope it works but it is there.
Alan,
I managed to work out a direct link:
http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&PageID=5100&ContainerID=11823&ObjectID=12520
I have not yet managed to see it all (it lasts some 66 minutes), but as Henrik Svensmark was one of the speakers I will surely see it through (I had to resort to Windows to see it, it would not show on my Linux box).
Let me know how you get on!
The environment minister is not the Norwegian one. It is the Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard.
The very last speaker (last 5 minutes) is Dr. Eystein Jansen from the Bjerknes Center for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway
http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/pages.asp?pid=47&kat=5&lang=2
(I don’t care too much for what he said….)
If you ask me, how much the sun influences the climate, I would answer 100% (since uranium has no influence, and every other effect is a direct or indirect contribution from the sun).
“Also: anyone who has lived in the same area long enough to have seen the climate change and still does not believe that it is doing so needs to have their head examined, as I believe they will find it firmly stuck in the sand of [snip].”
Jeremyj5000, I think if you stick around for a while you will find very few people here of any persuasion who don’t believe that climate changes. The disagreement is not about whether it changes — of course it does, no matter what we see anecdotally. The disagreement is about how much, if at all, that change is influenced by man.
On Science Daily today………
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm
Worth a comment?
Lockwood’s comments in this National Geographic piece are extremely depressing. Track back to an outstanding scientist willing to stand up and report excitedly on the results from the Ulysses Mission about startling recent changes to solar magnetic fields, etc. and speculating on their poorly understood influence on the Earth’s climate. It remains very poorly understood. He should be factoring that in to these statements but perhaps when elevated to senior academician status with such humdrum chores as managing budgets one has a different perspective.
“if you stick around for a while you will find very few people here of any persuasion who don’t believe that climate changes.”
Exactly. The notion that climate has ever been particularly “stable” is just nuts. History is full of accounts of droughts, floods, famine, good years, etc. In North America it appears that it is about a 60 year cycle and our “average” temperatures are only generated across a 30 year sample. You probably need to get NOAA to change “average” temperatures to a 60 year span in order to get a better read of reality.
Climate is ALWAYS changing. The early 1900’s saw a significant recovery from the Little Ice Age … climate changed faster and to a greater degree from 1830 to 1930 than it did(will) from 1910 to 2010.
Leif Svalgaard (10:52:45) :
I understand that the top of the atmosphere is very rarefied, you state one millionth of sea level density.
I seem to recall that the ozone layer, which has some significance, would have a sea level thickness of 3 mm. Well 3 mm x 1,000,000 = 3 km. So if we think about the top 30 km of the atmosphere, could the large variations in uv and x-rays from the sun cause significant changes in the radiation transport?
By significant I mean something on the order of 1 watt/m^2.
I would be grateful for a reference to a paper or book on the upper atmosphere that would be good for a novice with a physics background.
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. (Get the facts about global warming.) ”
And then there’s that link above that takes you to the “Facts about Global Warming.” When you click on the link that says Science, its the usual canned sound bytes wihtout ANY real evidence! WOW!
jeremyj5000 (09:43:27) :
This may have already been said, but what of the fact that there have already been several high-latitude, new-cycle sunspots (proven by their magnetic polarity) in the past few months, hinting that while the sun is indeed in a very deep solar minimum, it is not going to last much longer
My feeling is that most of the sunspots seen of cycle 24 would not have been counted as sunspots in the historical data so if we are comparing apples and apples it could be a prolonged sunspotless time. Even counting the micro sunspots, the number of spotless days for this cycle is already in the top 10 of the historical record (recent record i think – not sure of source data). Spotless days should be declining if we were in the upward portion of cycle 24.
Keep in mind that the main causes of ice ages is the Milankovitch Cycles, primarily being: Earths orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession (both axial and orbital precession), as well as the variation in the orbital plane.
Jupiter and Saturn’s tidal influence on the Sun are the main influences on long term variations in solar cycle output, as those planets orbital eccentricity varies from 0.01 up to as much as 0.09 over 40,000 and 100,000 year periods (these planets are in 5:2 resonance). They are also the primary influences on the changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricities over the same period. Between Earth eccentricity and solar output varying from minimal to maximal over a 100,000 year period, this perfectly explains the long term Ice Age cycle, with minor variations depending on the other cycles as well as short term variance in the solar cycles, the cause of which we dont have a good handle on and bears further research, but the bare fact that Jupiter and Saturn have such a huge influence over long term periods should mandate that we research into what other cosmic influences may be causing the short term variations in the Sun’s output. Perhaps it is due to the inner planets collective tidal influence varying in distribution, perhaps due to the tidal influence of Uranus and/or Neptune.
Either way, Hathaway has joined Lockwood in attempting to generate a reality distortion field around the solar cycle issue:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090505-sun-quiet.html
>In my opinion, I wouldn’t play with things I don’t know.
Thats an odd opinion for a scientist. If you don’t play with it, how are you going to learn how it works?