The following comments were taken (without permission … hopefully no one minds) from the article on sunspots at WUWT mostly in order of writing (except the first!):
“funny how skepticism about models and predictions all fly out the window.”
Laura says: June 14, 2011 at 3:27 pm
link to national geographic
Doug Jones says: June 14, 2011 at 3:59 pm
This is another case where if we’re right, we won’t like the results. Last thing we need is cold weather and crop failures. Bring on the global warming, PLEASE!
Even science AAA has published it
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/end-of-the-sunspot-cycle.html Yes, mainstream media is really taking this up.
German news magazine tells us already, that the outcome will be positive. Less distortions for power supply networks and mobile phones, even a “slight decrease in increasing global warming”. No cooling. So don’t worry.
Time to drag out the pitchforks and torches.“The Age of Witch-Hunting thus seems pretty congruent with the era of the Little Ice Age. The peaks of the persecution coincide with the critical points of climatic deterioration. Witches traditionally had been held responsible for bad weather which was so dangerous for the precarious agriculture of the pre-industrial period. But it was only in the 15th century that ecclesiastical and secular authorities accepted the reality of that crime.
To steven mosher comment: “funny how skepticism about models and predictions all fly out the window”
Could it just be that solar scientists are more respected than climate scientists? “Solargate” anyone?
The Lean et al. (1995) forcing from the Maunder Minimum was estimated to be -0.5 W/m2 (this is now regarded too high if anything), while that from doubling CO2 is +3.7 W/m2. Which one will one in the next few decades? You can figure it out.
My Comment: As everyone should know by now, the 3.7W/m2 is a result of their mythical “climate multiplier” so a more realistic figure is a 1/3 of this value or even less if work on latest spectral data is to be believed.
To Jim D.:Check your circuits, sir, you’re getting wrong answers. That 3.7 W/m2 is not just from CO2, it’s from all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., methane, CFCs, etc.). And that is not a direct number, but includes much assumed feedback from water vapor–which could very well not be happening. All of which renders your point somewhat moot. Further, Judy Lean’s reconstructions may be wrong as well–even the IPCC admits that the level of our scientific understanding of solar effects is “LOW”.
This news has not hit the BBC yet, I wonder if it will? Top story in Science is Phil Jones now saying warming since 1995 ‘..is now significant’ !
Also, someone earlier compared modeling the sun to counting bubbles in boiling water. Surely that is the kind of ‘skepticism’ you are looking for Mr. Mosher?
“Recent solar 11-year cycles are associated empirically with changes in global surface temperature of 0.1°C,” says Judith Lean, a solar physicist with the US Naval Research Laboratory.
If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.
A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3°C dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.
Henry P : The warming in the Northern hemisphere seems to mostly follow ocean cycles of the 60 year variety. … Lots of study is really needed if its even desired to figure out the mechanism of the S. Hemisphere. …Ice ages give us a fundamental clue in this difference, as the ice ages tend to happen more in the N. Hemisphere and do not seem to occur in the S. hemisphere except on a very limited scale, … This is all speculation, in that there is evidence to support it, but its by no means a sure thing.Same thing with this entire Solar max that will appear to be a min. Until the Max has passed, its nearly impossible to guess what we will see. I have said all along that it appears to be something on the order of Dalton/Mara and that time will tell us the truth. We do know several things though after over 100 years of mostly good coverage of the world with temps.:The cool-down will take a decent amount of time. The oceans so to speak hold a lot of heat and will be able to release this gradually to make it appear that the cooling is sudden. We will have time to adapt. The first thing we need to do is not panic (which I will repeat as a message over and over again.) The cool down will be gradual. I expect some “exciting” things as far as our understanding of the climate goes….Glaciers therefore will not be outside NYC or London are not a threat in our lifetimes.Temperatures will plummet over next few years since oceans are in their “recharging phase.” This is what has been causing the flare-up in the AO which has really been the driver of weird weather events. But this will be gradual and I expect if the solar effects start really effecting the climate that the oceans will go into a warming phase again as they attempt to equalize temps. Therefore, we can expect BRUTAL winters for awhile, but overall temperatures should be rather steadilly dropping. (All except GISS of course with one temp. gauge and a crazy Dr. Hansen standing over it with a blow-torch yelling “Fossil fuel trains are death trains…” But moving on…..If you want to see what our climate compares to today, go look up the 1950′s. Its like a mirror image of what we see today. High AO, newly cold PDO, Atlantic getting ready to switch to cold…its like case in point to what is happening today. 1970′s can also point to some events, but by far 1950′s are a better fit. Expect a very bad hurricane season this year. The la nina track with rising heat from the Atlantic as the Nina weakens….just spells disaster especially for the E. Coast of the US. But what does further cooling indicate for hurricanes? Let me be the first to say: It depends. One year could be like last year, then this year happens and blows the previous years away. Weather happens, the temperatures are what people should be concerned about.As for temperatures, we have no idea of the actual effects. We know it got colder (1600′s), and the dominant theory is the solar cycles (or lack thereof) but before people start a panic, realize that all along we have to adapt.Fossil fuels we have plenty of. Energy and heat will not be an issue, crops will be. This is the issue with farming in general, but on the bright side, there is plenty of fallow land in areas that will still be good farming land even with say a 2C decrease in temps. overall. Future will unfold as it will. The losers in this case will be Russia and Canada who will lose farming land as a 2C decrease (in my mind worst case scenario) would cause all of Canada to basically be unfit for farming. But that is the future. Hold onto reality, don’t look too much into guesses on future climate…we can not truly predict the future, which is something I have always said to alarmists.
Well the 20% increases this year and then 5% each year after that in energy bills here in the UK will be welcomed along with this news.At least when the 10,000 die from the cold ti will bring the housing prices down, and make the enviro’s happy.At least there will be no snow with the cold as AGW will make winters snow free.
benfromMO says: June 14, 2011 at 11:52 pm
“The cool-down will take a decent amount of time. The oceans so to speak hold a lot of heat and will be able to release this gradually”Good comment Ben. My simple model I built a couple of years ago agrees. Even if we get a Dalton style solar minimum, the solar heat stored in the oceans will see us through for a good while. Of course, that will be wilfully misinterpreted by the AGW loons to show the Sun has little effect on climate….
I would expect to see a 0.3-0.5C drop in the Northern Hemisphere over the next 25 years if the Sun stays quiet and we get a few more big volcanoes.