You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Ice Age Alert: Cancel previous Global Warming Alert
2008-04-23
Sunspot activity has not resumed up after hitting an 11-year low in March last year, raising fears that — far from warming — the globe is about to return to an Ice Age, says an Australian-American scientist.

Physicist Phil Chapman, the first native-born Australian to become an astronaut with NASA [he became an American citizen to join up, though he never went into space], said pictures from the U.S. Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) showed no spots on the sun.

He said the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7 degrees Centigrade. "This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Chapman wrote in The Australian Wednesday. "If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

[Critics quickly pointed out that Chapman may have been "cherry-picking" the data. A strong La Nina formation in the Pacific pushed down January temperatures over much of the Northern Hemisphere from where they had been a year earlier, but average global temperatures are still much higher than the 20th-century average, and the NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record.]
The month of March proof is not Cherry Picking?
The Bureau of Meteorology says temperatures in Australia have been warmer than the 1960-90 average since the late 1970s, barring a couple of cooler years, and are now 0.3 degrees Centigrade higher than the long-term average.

A sunspot is a region on the sun that is cooler than the rest and appears dark.

An alternative theory of global warming is that a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the Earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak — during low sunspot activity — the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

But scientists from the U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Bolder, Colorado published a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change. The researchers wrote in the journal Nature that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, and that that was far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

Chapman proposes preventive, or delaying, moves to slow the cooling, such as bulldozing Siberian and Canadian snow to make it dirty and less reflective. "My guess is that the odds are now at least 50:50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades," he writes.

• Click here to read Chapman's opinion piece in The Australian.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#22  Increased CO2 (idling SUVs) won't help much. Methane is 1000 times more efficient in producing greenhouse effect. Burning wood and coal would help to increase carbon particles in the atmosphere which may hopefully drift to ice sheet areas and help trapping some heat for melting and evaporation. Though, water vapor is another greenhouse effect agent more efficient than CO2, but has the tendency to condense on ice and thus increase its volume.

I am not looking forward to it. I'm a thermophile.
Posted by: twobyfour   2008-04-23 22:41  

#21  My apricot tree has had nothing for 3 years.
This year it put out about 300 token flowers. In the meantime I keeps increasing it's mass.
Posted by: 3dc   2008-04-23 22:13  

#20  See also NEWSCIENTIST > SOLAR SYSTEM MAY GO HAYWIRE BEFORE SUN DIES. And, as per various simulations in a few 00 Milyuhn years, NOT 5.0+ Bilyuhn???

PLANET MERCURY - from the B52's "LOVE SHACK", to the THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA's "RIDERLESS WINGED HORSE" [Hoss]???

* "IN THE HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN" - song.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-04-23 21:48  

#19  If this is true we need some sunspots, and soon. Otherwise we'll be paying people to idle their SUV's all day. And pray that enough CO2 might make a difference.
Posted by: Helmuth, Speaking for Thusoling9307   2008-04-23 21:01  

#18  Pretty soon, everyone living above the 45th parallel will be begging for our CO2. BWAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: SteveS   2008-04-23 20:47  

#17  The original article is much more interesting:

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.



Solves one problem: Wotan is coming. He doesn't care for competitors.
Posted by: KBK   2008-04-23 19:29  

#16  

And that tiny spot is an old cycle spot. So we haven't yet reached the bottom of the cycle.

In addition, per HadCRUT3 the global temp anomaly for March08 was .430, so what's NOAA looking at?

March anomaly:
'02 .607
'03 .422
'04 .510
'05 .493
'06 .385
'07 .441
'08 .430

Of course, this is one month. Look at the bottom graph at the link.
Posted by: KBK   2008-04-23 19:14  

#15  I am just aching for the the day when my lefty friends start warning me of impending global cooling.
Posted by: Kelly   2008-04-23 18:03  

#14  One blast of gamma rays from deep space and it's global frying™ for us terrafirmites.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2008-04-23 17:59  

#13  Global sea ice has increased by between 3 and 4 million square kilometers in less than a year. That's an awful lot of new ice in a very short period.

The irony here is that the Warmers, despite their apocalyptic rhetoric, believe climate changes slowly. There is evidence that cold periods like the Little Ice Age came on quickly, 5 to 10 years.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-04-23 17:31  

#12  Am I channeling JOE again?

If so, well done, you're at least decipherable with minimum effort.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-04-23 16:45  

#11  Something I've always suspected is that we will get hit with an Ice Age long before we have to worry about any warming. Just the way the universe works.

One reason is that ultimately, warming is easier to deal with. It comes with all sorts of benifits.(longer growing seasons anyone?) An Ice Age has no obvious solution that the tranzis can use to beat us over the head with.

Realisticly, if the glaciers return, we are going to have to expand southward. Look out Mexico. On the other hand, the falling sea levels will mean more exposed land to be used.

Either way, the Tranzi's will find themselves Overtaken By Events. As usual.

Am I channeling JOE again?
Posted by: N guard   2008-04-23 15:24  

#10  Look up "Maunder minimum" on wikipedia.
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-04-23 15:15  

#9  Old P: The National Geographic channel had scientists tracking Sun Spot activity for thousands of years by studying chemical makeup stalagmites from caves (Mineral tree rings so to speak). They could actually see proof of the correlation between low Sun Spot activity and the mini Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-04-23 14:01  

#8  ptah, You're spot on. Decrease Sun Spots = reduced magnetic field protection from cosmic rays. Increased cosmic rays entering Earths atmosphere = increased hygroscopic nuclei = increased cloud cover = increased reflection of solar radiation and cooling. What the hell does suns brightness have to do with it?

That's my former meteorologist career speaking.

Here is a riddle I bet would make sense to these Bozos.

Question: Why do more ducks fly north than in the winter?

Answer: Because the higher they fly the much.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-04-23 13:55  

#7  #3: a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change.

"A" report in 2006 said this. There have been about 30 reports since 2006 that refute that statement. There are correlations between sunspot activity and climate change going back 200 years. As for " NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record. NOAA said last week that last month was the warmest March on record", I guess they didn't check out Minnesota and Wisconsin, or much of the northeastern US, where there was unprecedented cold and snowfall. As for NOAA, it, like NASA, has been caught several times manipulating data to ensure their precious funding won't be cut.

The sun provides 100% of the energy that keeps this ball of rock from being frozen solid. Carbon dioxide makes up 4% of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses, while water vapor makes up 95%. We don't understand half of what's going on in our atmosphere, and we're learning more and more every day. Most of what we're learning refutes the arrogant stand of "climate change" fearmongers. This guy challenges this group of idiots' golden nest egg - of course they're going to attack him.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2008-04-23 13:45  

#6  Humans have a unique facility to adapt to different climates and geography. Therefore, it baffles me that some warn about impending doom, while others scramble for the bottled water.
We adapt ! To adapt is to react to the change, not soil your pants with worry.
Al Gore is a scam artist who sought and won the $ from Nobel. This has nothing to do with the earth nor humanity. It's fiction for profit.
Posted by: wxjames   2008-04-23 13:27  

#5  This shows the pathetic ignorance and gullibility of the average science writer. Here's the theory:

An alternative theory of global warming is that a strong solar magnetic field, when there is plenty of sunspot activity, protects the Earth from cosmic rays, cutting cloud formation, but that when the field is weak — during low sunspot activity — the rays can penetrate into the lower atmosphere and cloud cover increases, cooling the surface.

Here's the supposed refutation:

The researchers wrote in the journal Nature that the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 percent over 11-year sunspot cycles, and that that was far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

This is confusing magentic field effects with luminosity, two different effects, measured differently, and the writer says the latter is a REFUTATION of the former?
Posted by: ptah   2008-04-23 12:59  

#4  By then the earth won't have a climate - the sun will have eated it.
Posted by: Gomez Gromoter7489   2008-04-23 12:57  

#3  a report in 2006 that showed the sun had a negligible effect on climate change.
-----------------------------------------------
That will read funny in about 250 million years.
Posted by: Gomez Gromoter7489   2008-04-23 12:56  

#2  It will still be Bush's fault, no matter what happens.
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-04-23 12:50  

#1  The Sun has a neglible effect on climate change? hmmmmm guess that puts all the blame on cow farts.
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2008-04-23 12:46  

00:00