Sunspot Activity

nwallace

Summary: If NASA are right its going to get cold in a few decades after getting stupidly warm, if SSRC are right its going to get cold in a few years before the full effect of mmgw is seen. Of course it could all be bollox, but the good news is that all the insulasion you have been adding to your house to stop lots of heat escaping when its "cold" will help when/if it is "proper cold"

The 1793 to 1830 period is in what is refered to as "The Little Ice Age"

Oh and i'm sure there is a hole in their timings, seems it is 14 years late.

---

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Changes in the Sun’s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change



January 2, 2008



Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.



Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.



“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”



As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”



When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm. “The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”



Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”



More information on the Space and Science Research Center is available at: www.spaceandscience.net



The previous NASA announcement was made at:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... grange.htm


January 7 Update: Responses to Press Release. Please accept our thanks for the many who have responded to the company's first release of 2008. The first ten replies strongly endorsed (9 to 1 in favor) of what the SSRC is trying to do. For those who have sent in questions about the web site and the newly started SSRC we have taken those comments and where appropirate made immediate changes to improve the web site. Everyone's assistance in making the SSRC web site better is appreciated. Keep it up!

OffTheBackAdam

The proponants of global warming will doubtless either ignore this or try to discredit it.
The antagonists of global warming will doubtless trumpet it from the rooftops.
The climate is complex, our activities do appear to be affecting it, but to what extent is the question? Why was the climate warm enough for hyena & hippos to be bathing in the Thames Valley 135,00 years ago? Continental Drift hasn't moved us that far north since then. How could the Romans grow grapes as far north as Lincoln?I'm all in favour of insulating houses better, using more efficient lighting (Pity the new EU diktat for lights means that they'll be more mercury being released into the enviroment, every time a goverment sticks its oar in, it picks the wrong solution, reducing exhaust emissions, put in a catalyst, so increase fuel consumption, rather than set the limits and let industry satisfy them (lean burn engines in this example)) if it saves me money. You may have observed that our dear government is very keen to tax us when we do "naughty" things, but loathes to give us anything back should we be "good".
One doesn't see conferences on Climate Change occuring in Scarborough, funny how they're all in Rio or other nice, warm tropical resorts.
I've not heard of the "Dalton Minimum" before, the "Maunder Minimum" is known to me, that occured between 1645 & 1715, the period of ice fairs on the Thames etc.
There was very wet spell in the Middle Ages, circa 1415.
The graph below shows a number of solar minima, no "Dalton" mentioned, note, but a small drop around that period mentioned.

One should also note the effects of Tambora's erruption of April 1825, causing the "Year without a summer" in 1816. This blasted 100 cubic kilometres of volcanic material into the atmosphere and was some 4x the energy of Krakatau's August 1883 blast, that itself lowered global temperatures by some 1.2C the following year. Munch's "The Scream" painted in 1893 may well depict the atmospheric conditions that lasted in Norway.
When one considers that anything which fails to support either sides' arguments is ignored by their opponents it's not too surprising that most of us just shrug our shoulders and get on with life.

nwallace

The effect of eruptions on global temperatures make me wonder about the effect that sulphur and smogs had on the local temperatures. Or more accurately the much reduced levels of sulphur and other heavy particulates in the atmosphere now than when heavy smogs were common in Europes industrialised cities.

OffTheBackAdam

That certainly has had an effect. Interestingly, the temperatures in the USA peaked in the 1930's, and have dropped since.

clarkson

global warming and us is all a bit fishy to me. im not so sure it is us causing it, we're just heloing it along a bit. to me, the above article confirms this a bit more!

mercsport

Saturday night and tooling about reading 'BikeRadar' . What happened to the rock'n'roll nights of yore I wonder ?
Nonetheless reading the above - late , as usual - reminds me that a very few years ago I bought a Hydrogen - alpha filter system for a solar telescope which allowed the viewing of the sun in its glory of spots ; plage ; filaments ; and most importantly for me : the glory of viewing prominences ( much like you see in any doc. re. the sun on tv ) . That aside , I was prepared to wait a few years for the sun to rev up to it's period of max. activity . How wrong could I have been ? The sun was cooking ! It was , in short , performing a lively jig there and then and not hanging around for it's appointed period of action .
A very pleasant surprise for me as the views were incredible . But it did make me wonder what in heck it would be like when it was at max. ?
I haven't kept up with solar science at all but I think we're at max. about now - but not certain - but back then I was given to thinking that global warming ( or is cooling ? ) , must be down to the sun , and that the rest of it : our collective carbon hoofprint might just be a wee bit of hooey . :roll:

Parkey

As someone who works in the field of spacecraft that observe the earth and the sun, and with the scientists who interpret the data, I would warn people against thinking that there's any kind of division of opinion in the scientific community over whether man made climate change is a reality.

This said, I would agree that there's certainly "wot I reckon" scepticism and cynicism out there by the bucketload, and people trying to muddy the waters too. There are a lot of people who would really like global warming not to be our fault and our problem to overcome. Out of this wanting comes a lot of wishful thinking, grasping for theories or dubious science that would prove the outcome they want. This depresses me, because I think that in reality the most difficult thing about tackling climate change is just taking the issue seriously enough at an early stage.

As for those who argue it's all a big conspiracy to get science funding, I can only say I wish it was. Then they might pay me more.

mercsport

"As someone who works in the field of spacecraft that observe the earth and the sun, and with the scientists who interpret the data, I would warn people against thinking that there's any kind of division of opinion in the scientific community over whether man made climate change is a reality. "

As I only read the daily papers and listen to the radio I shouldn'r really comment , however I really thought there were two distinct camps on this issue within the science community . C ' mon , are you saying that scientists agree on everything ? :shock: No , maybe you don't mean that , but they all agree it's man-made warming ? Furthermore , do you mean that scientists aren't fallible and not as prey to scepticism and cynicism as we ordinary bod's ?
Incidentally , I take it you don't consider the sun has a part in this global warming pickle we're in ?

Parkey

The sun most definately has an effect on the climate, the Earth's climate is a very complex system, however it's very unlikely that the sun alone is responsible for the warming phenomenon.



This graph from wikipedia shows this as well as any other graph that I've seen here at work.

The sun has a 11-year cycle where its activity goes up and down, but it's easy to plot a mean level of activity and to see that, yes, Earth's climate is affected by this. But looking at the last 50 years or so it's also clear that there is something else that has been causing temperatures to rise.

Now add in a plot of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere next to the plot of temperature. When did the CO2 start to rise significantly? About 50 years ago. We know that at least the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans introducing new carbon into the carbon cycle from fossil fuels.

What more do you want me to say?

Now on the whole scientists make a carreer out of disagreeing with each other because if they all thought the same nobody would ever discover anything. There's certainly debate and uncertainty as to what will happen with regards the climate and what the extent of the problem actually is. However, whilst it's easy enough to find vocal journalists and industrialists who object to the idea of man made global warming, you'll struggle to find many peer-reviewed scientific papers that argue against it. They're increasingly rare these days.

mercsport

Thanks for the input . Well put .

ransos

There are two problems with the OP:

1. The report is NOT from NASA, rather it's an interpretation of NASA data by one person.

2. The report is junk. See here: http://www.bautforum.com/1153946-post35.html

nwallace

So is the rise between 1910 and 1940 entirley down to Sunspot activity?
A rise that matches in size that between 1960 and 2000

Both are 40 year periods with an increase in anomaly of 0.4 Degrees.

Would still like to see a graphing against sulphur outputs.
Particularly as the mid point of the 0.8 Degrees increase over the 90 year period 1910 to 2000 is roughly when Coal went out of Fashion and Oil came into fashion.

I could also surmise from a tenuous connection between the 2 that Burning coal has a lower effect on global warming than oil (though of course coal emits heavy particles, results in smog and global dimming)

I also suspect that in terms of equivalent nasties output, there was probably a lot less coal burnt than oil and probably less equivalent energy output.

About 50 years ago. We know that at least the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is from humans introducing new carbon into the carbon cycle from fossil fuels.

Has there been a net gain? As i say above I presume there has, we swapped moderate (cough) use of one source for endemic user of another.

Would be interesting to compare the outputs of different fuel sources per Kilo Watt.
That is of course for the fuel only not the construction costs of producing harnesses for the fuel (which is where some "green" technologies turn out to be more polluting per Kw over their life than some others)

OffTheBackAdam

Interesting article popped up in last Sunday's Telegraph. The area of sea ice over the North Pole is back to normal, http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/06cefdd4b3088831/8919a17e29fab60e also, there's been snowfalls in parts of the Middle East, notably Jerusalem. http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL3164453920080131

For some quite heavyweight reading, try http://climatesci.org/

mercsport

Bonzo : " You mental midget ! " :P

It's been a good thread this .

nwallace

Another interesting one to do with the Tata thingy and how it and other factors yet to come to fruition are already factored into the climate predictions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/12 ... ecocrimes/


Having followed a Tata diesel pickup up Ninewells Avenue the other day I'm doubting that Tata can build an engine capable of 30 g/km.
I've never seen that much diesel dust (Think cloud, couldn't even see the plate to attempt to report it as roadworthy) from an engine before, and it wasn't even spitting parts at me.

nwallace

Vote green – go blackshirt
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/ ... _go_b.html

At least this site manages to show their bias in the "Who we are" on the right hand box.

Note how tenuous the link for the "ban black farmers" thing is. All because their manifesto is to promote buying local.

always_tyred

Haven't they kind of demonstrated that there's an underlying upward trend in global temperatures, upon which is superimposed a ca. 12 year sunspot cycle? Isn't that what caused the run of cold winters in the 60's and 70's, resulting in the absurdly optomistic installation of ski lifts in Scotland?

Cumulonimbus

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The proponants of global warming will doubtless either ignore this or try to discredit it.
The antagonists of global warming will doubtless trumpet it from the rooftops.
The climate is complex, our activities do appear to be affecting it, but to what extent is the question? Why was the climate warm enough for hyena & hippos to be bathing in the Thames Valley 135,00 years ago? Continental Drift hasn't moved us that far north since then.

I don't know a huge amount about this but i think that simply mentioning these animals is a little misleading. How would a relatively small rise in temperatures suddenly result in equatorial wildlife appearing in the UK. There is also the influence of sea-levels which were higher then raising the question of how the animals would get here? (though ice caps dont melt instantly so by the time the rising seas had cut us from the continent then the animals could already be here.

I am not sure about the animals you mention but the elephant that is often mentioned living in London was not what we would nowadays call an African or Asian one. It was a now extinct straight-tusked elephant. This lived in temperate areas and is now believed to have died out in Europe about 40,000 years ago (during the last ice age). If it hadnt died out then i suppose it would be living here today. I wonder how much its extinction had to do with humans :oops: I suppose it is logical that there would be a temperate elephant - there are tropical ones and there were arctic ones (mammoths) so why not one in the middle. Why cant the animals you mention have had a temperate species as well?

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

How could the Romans grow grapes as far north as Lincoln?

You could do today if you wanted! Am not an expert on past climate but that was a bit of a warmer spell. There are some references around to growing grapes in Scotland in medieval times. However, i think that when it comes to crops you have to be a bit wary. If someone is determined to grow something in a climate that is not really suitable then they could do. Might make it hard work but people have unusual hobbies at times - also there would have been a need for communion wine and maybe someone thought it was worth having a pop at growing it themselves rather than buying it in.

Cumulonimbus

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Interesting article popped up in last Sunday's Telegraph. The area of sea ice over the North Pole is back to normal, http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/browse_thread/thread/06cefdd4b3088831/8919a17e29fab60e

Really? This site shows that the total arctic sea-ice area has been below the 30 year average for the whole winter.

OffTheBackAdam

They were growing grapes commercially in Nothamptonshire.
As for my statement about the various species living in Southern England during the Pleistocene, it simply means that the climate was much warmer than today, without any contribution from our ancestors to the atmospheric composition. They are ceratinly no temperate Hippos or Hyenas.
The medieval warm period is well documented and also completely missing from the infamous "hockey stick" graph of temperature in the film "An Inconvenient Truth". Perhaps that was a bit too inconvenient for Al Gore?

Cumulonimbus

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

They were growing grapes commercially in Nothamptonshire.

That depends on a market for them though. You can grow them there today and could have done earlier last century.

As for my statement about the various species living in Southern England during the Pleistocene, it simply means that the climate was much warmer than today, without any contribution from our ancestors to the atmospheric composition. They are ceratinly no temperate Hippos or Hyenas.

Correct that there are no temperate Hippos or Hyenas today but that doesnt mean there werent in the past. Hippos were widespread in Europe before the last ice age but this shouldnt be taken to mean that conditions here were similar to those in sub-Saharan Africa today. Hippos can live in colder climates as long as the water doesnt freeze in winter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus

Hyenas also had a much larger range in the past. For instance, this article mentions how hyenas used to eat mammoths.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itain.html



My point is not that climates havent been warmer in the past. Just that some of the headlines can be misleading. Using modern day animals as a comparison when those animals had a different range in the past and/or different species is not a fair comparison. Indeed, if it wasnt for humans then i wonder how many of these species would be around the Thames today

always_tyred

Its about the RATE of change, people, not the absolute temperature, okay? Hippos bathing in the Thames is therefore only really interesting or comparable if it was too cold for them 50 years previously.

OffTheBackAdam

Rate of change.
OK, here's the latest published by the Hadley Centre, degrees C above the 1961-90 estimated global average temperature.
2001 0.40
2002 0.46
2003 0.46
2004 0.43
2005 0.48
2006 0.42
2007 0.41

Oh and for 1998 it was 0.52.
The rate of change over the entire 20th Century is estimated at some +0.7C
Still worried?
Scotland's had it's best Ski season for many years, I was in Lake Louise last January, it was their best snow for 25 years.
Doesn't sound like Global Warming to me

Cumulonimbus

Always Tyred wrote:

Its about the RATE of change, people, not the absolute temperature, okay? Hippos bathing in the Thames is therefore only really interesting or comparable if it was too cold for them 50 years previously.

A point was raised and i tried to answer it. I think that looking at how warm or cold past climate was does have a relevance to the discussion. The period in question (the Eemian interglacial) was only a couple of degrees warmer than the current interglacial (Holocene, last 10,000 years) yet sea-levels were 4-6 metres higher.

I agree that rate of change is important though. The Holocene is believed to have offered the most stable global climate in a long time. It can be argued that this has led to the present level of civilisation as the stable climate has allowed relatively stable societies to appear. If changes happen suddenly then humankind will have to adapt very quickly or suffer the consequences. If one area that is wet at the moment suddenly becomes dry then less can be grown. This is especially important in a third world country where people are more dependent on agriculture. If they can grow loads less food all of a sudden then they either die, rely on aid for ages or have to move. Where do they move to? Immigration is already a hot topic.

always_tyred

Cumulonimbus, I defer to your greater knowledge on this point.

OfftheBackAdam - Lake Louise is fantastic. Great snow, awesome scenery, blah. Been skiing in the Alps recently?

I remember, when I was very small, boy (my mother used to call me "Never Tyred") I used to like bubble bath. As a grubby little bar steward, it would not be long before there was some much dirt in the water, that the bubbles were almost gone.

Even then, I would be able to scrape around and put all the bubbles in one place and have a big pile of bubbles and fondly remember what it was like 15 minutes earlier when there were loads of bubbles everywhere.

You know what I'm saying.

Also, on an unrelated point - Scottish Skiing is an oxymoron. Especially when you get to within 50m of the lifts and have to trudge through a glastonbury of mud. When DID they take the website photos and where are the rocks and tufts of grass poking through?

(NB: "Best season for years" is "best season since 2006, when it was better")

geocycle

Just to clarify, the reason parts of the last interglacial were warmer than the Holocene was due to the orbital configuration of the earth relative to the sun. During the last interglacial all three orbital cycles (precession of the equinoxes, obliquity of the ecliptic and the shape of the elliptical orbit of the earth) were all in optimal interglacial mode, whereas today in the Holocene only the first two are in phase. All these influence the radiation received by the earth at the top of the atmosphere and its distribution at the earths surface.

Sunspot activity influences the energy delivered by the sun and cycles in this activity can explain a good deal of the climate variation during the instrumental period (and before eg Little Ice Age) but the last 50 years or so stands out as an anomaly which is best explained by greenhouse gases. Models are pretty conclusive on this point and 99% of serious scientists agree (although the amount of warming and the likely changes in different regions resulting from this warming are debated). Despite the down turn in solar activity we are still in the warmest decade on record.

The point about rates of change made above is a good one and is unprecedented except for switches at the end of the last ice age when temperatures in Greenland warmed by 5-6 degrees in a couple of decades.

For informed debate on this subject I suggest you visit www.realclimate.com or look at the IPCC report.

Right now back to bikes!

Parkey

Thanks geocycle.

I think this site, that the real climate page links to, covers all the bases pretty comprehensively.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

In particular the pagethat lists all of the institutions that agree with the global warming consensus.

always_tyred

No one has seriously addressed my point about Scottish skiing though.

When we are all sitting on tiny blobs of land wearing shorts and nursing sunburn, there will be someone telling the rest of us that its a natural phenomenon (and that Elvis told them so...)

Just a pedantic point about "99% of serious scientists agree"

I'm a scientist and I don't know sh1t about climate change - well I kind of do, but a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you know? Hopefully a high percentage of scientists in unrelated disciplines are honest enough to acknowledge this.

Cumulonimbus

Always Tyred wrote:

Also, on an unrelated point - Scottish Skiing is an oxymoron. Especially when you get to within 50m of the lifts and have to trudge through a glastonbury of mud. When DID they take the website photos and where are the rocks and tufts of grass poking through?

(NB: "Best season for years" is "best season since 2006, when it was better")

You can get good snow in Scotland but you have to be a bit lucky or able to go up there when the right conditions come about. The end of last winter had some good stuff at times, eg

http://www.highland-instinct.co.uk/gall ... 8/08mar15/

OffTheBackAdam

Blimey, talk about "Threadomancy"

unclemalc

Chances are that if you look out of your window it'll be raining; the average temperature is ~10 degrees lower than it should be and you're not on your bike.
That's a result of man-made emissions into the atmosphere, commonly known as 'Global Warming', manifesting itself as changes to local weather systems.
For us, this is what the near future is going to be like - a lot more water from the sky, year round, interspersed with short dry periods when you least expect them, together with less extremes in seasonal average temperatures.
The changes taking place as a result of man-made Global Warming are happening now and will increasingly be seen in THE NEAR FUTURE.
Every week the 'climate models' are re-run as new data comes in and NONE OF THEM ARE GOOD NEWS.
It's only going to get worse people.... :shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm off to fix a leak.