Considering that the Sun’s current Solar Cycle is one of the least active in years and that the experts are predicting the next Cycle to be even less active, I am guessing that the global temperatures will be trending lower over the next several years.   Probably below his 0.0 reference line.  We will have to wait and see.

cbdakota

<am,.

How much longer will Cycle 24 go before its maximum activity occurs and quiets down? Experts are forecasting that in the first part of 2013. When the maximum occurs the Sun’s poles switch. So if you want to make your own guess, lets look at how close the poles are to switching right now. The chart below records the position of the North and South poles with time. The three previous Cycles polar locations are shown and you can see when the poles swapped sides. Cycle 24 poles are drawing near that now and it seems likely they will switch soon. If so, it will be a very weak–solar activity–Cycle. (Click chart for clarity.)

Solar Polar Field – Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO) – 1976 to Present

Solar experts are predicting that Cycle 25 will be less active than 24. In the past, several Cycles with such low solar activity were associated with cooling global temperatures. The global temperature has plateaued for the past 15 to 16 years. The Warmers say that it has to go at least 20 years to disprove their CO2 man-made global warming theory. We may be heading for a period that will be much longer than 20 years of plateaued or even falling global temperatures. This should send the CO2 theory to the trash bin, but it does not necessarily bode well for mankind. Cooler global temperatures have not provided the era of plenty we now enjoy. Food production will likely be less than optimal and that can’t be a good thing with the continued growth of global population.
cbdakota

“Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

Others disagreed.  Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.”

Professor Curry’s statement about computer models is spot on.  Jones, however, is not about to give up the source of his income (climate research money) which requires that he and his colleagues continue to alarm and frighten people.

Several other excerpts from the Mail’s posting:

 “Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.”

The author of the posting, David Rose makes the following comment:

 “Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.”

Solar Cycle 24 is indicating the least active Sun in the past 100 years.  Most solar scientists predict that Solar Cycle 25 will be even weaker than Cycle 24.  What does this mean?  Such performance in the past has resulted in “solar minimums” that coincided with significantly lower global temperatures. The correlation of solar activity (often indicated by number and size of the sunspots) and global temperatures has been very good over the centuries. 

To read more of the Daily Mail posting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29U2Gb6uW

To read my posting “How Many Years Of No Global Warming Are Required To Disprove CO2 As The Primary Factor In Global Warming?” click here:http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/how-many-years-of-no-global-warming-are-required-to-disprove-co2-as-the-primary-factor-in-global-warming/

cbdakota

cbdakota

Courtesy of: Jose Antonio Penas/Science Photo Library

They are persuaded that the Sun, not CO2, is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate.  History shows that solar cycles that have low activity are accompanied by cooling climate.   For example, several minimally active cycles in succession have yielded the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum.  The temperature drop during the Maunder Minimum was so large as to give that Minimum the name—-“little ice age”.   The earlier Minimums were characterized by the low sunspot count.  Now we can add to that the F10.7cm radio flux, the geomagnetic readings, and many other ways to characterize the level of solar activity.  Even as new satellites and other investigative science provide us with greater understanding of the Sun, it still is not clear as to why Solar Cycle 24 is so inactive.  While many observers claim they knew 24 was going to be minimally active, the record shows most forecast that 24 would be pretty robust and not be appreciably different from Cycle 23.  Just like the weatherman that forecast rain for Maryland tomorrow because it is raining in West Virginia today, the solar experts now “know” that Cycle 25 will be like Cycle 24.

Dr. Hathaway of NASA observes that the Sun’s plasma Great Conveyor Belt (GCB) moved very rapidly in 2008 and 2009 but was notably slower in 2000 and 2001.  “I believe this could explain the unusually deep solar minimum we’ve been experiencing,” says Dr. Hathaway. The high speed of the conveyor belt challenges existing models of the solar cycle and it has forced us back to the drawing board for new ideas.”

Well ok, but why did the GCB change speeds?  Could the planets be the forcing  for this and other changes?

Planets as forcing agents

What is the relationship of the planets and Earth’s climate? There is a theory based upon on the conservation of momentum that links every planet to the Sun.  Another theory is the planet induced tidal effect upon the Sun’s plasma surface. Undoubtedly there are more, but two are enough for now.

Refresher:   Some of my readers may need a refresher regarding the solar system planets.

Solar System Planetary Data (rounded)

The mass of the Sun is 1048 times that of Jupiter or 1.989X 10^30 .

 The Landschiedt Minimum

In 2003, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt published a paper  “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?”  In that paper he predicted that the Earth would start cooling with the coolest period about 2030 and that it would be equivalent of the Maunder Minimum (aka, “the Little Ice Age’).   Landscheidt used the Gleissberg cycle of 80 to 90-years to identify periods of cool climate on Earth. He said that within the Gleissberg cycle there is an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the Sun’s oscillatory motion about the center of mass of the solar system.  His premise was that the collective angular momentum of the giant outer planets imposed a torque on the Sun that varies the speed of the Sun’s equatorial rotational velocity.  Some people are saying that this minimum should be called the Landscheidt Minimum. (Landscheidt died in 2004.) Landscheidt further predicted that another minimum would occur about 2200.

One might presume that the center of the Sun is the likely solar system center of mass.  Only on occasion is that true.  The center of the solar system’s mass is called the barycenter.  Watch this video to get an appreciation for the effect of the planets on the barycenter.  (no sound)

The following chart shows where the barycenter is relative to the Sun by year.

                      Figure 8:  Solar System Barycenter

Landscheidt said:

The solar dynamo theory developed by Babcock, the first still rudimentary theory of solar activity, starts from the premise that the dynamics of the magnetic sunspot cycle is driven by the sun’s rotation. Yet this theory only takes into account the sun’s spin momentum, related to its rotation on its axis, but not its orbital angular momentum linked to its very irregular oscillation about the centre of mass of the solar system (CM). Figure 8 shows this fundamental motion, described by Newton three centuries ago. It is regulated by the distribution of the masses of the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune in space. The plot shows the relative ecliptic positions of the centre of mass (small circles) and the sun’s centre (cross) for the years 1945 to 1995 in a heliocentric coordinate system.

The large solid circle marks the sun’s surface. Most of the time, the CM is to be found outside of the sun’s body. Wide oscillations with distances up to 2.2 solar radii between the two centres are followed by narrow orbits which may result in close encounters of the centres as in 1951 and 1990. The contribution of the sun’s orbital angular momentum to its total angular momentum is not negligible. It can reach 25 percent of the spin momentum. The orbital angular momentum varies from -0.1�10⁴⁷ to 4.3� 10⁴⁷ g cm² s^-1, or reversely, which is more than a forty-fold increase or decrease (Landscheidt, 1988). Thus it is conceivable that these variations are related to varying phenomena in the sun’s activity, especially if it is considered that the sun’s angular momentum plays an important role in the dynamo theory of the sun’s magnetic activity.

Variations of more than 7% in the sun’s equatorial rotational velocity, going along with variations in solar activity, were observed at irregular intervals (Landscheidt, 1976, 1984). This could be explained if there were transfer of angular momentum from the sun’s orbit to the spin on its axis. I have been proposing such spin-orbit coupling for decades (Landscheidt, 1984, 1986). Part of the coupling could result from the sun’s motion through its own magnetic fields. As Dicke (1964) has shown, the low corona can act as a brake on the sun’s surface. The giant planets, which regulate the sun’s motion about the CM, carry more than 99 percent of the angular momentum in the solar system, whereas the sun is confined to less than 1 percent. So there is a high potential of angular momentum that can be transferred from the outer planets to the revolving sun and eventually to the spinning sun.

From wiki, a somewhat analogous to the Planets/Sun interaction: The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon (due to tidal torque the Moon exerts on the Earth). This in turn results in the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth (at about 42 nsec/day^{[citation needed]}), and in gradual increase of the radius of Moon’s orbit (at ~4.5 cm/year rate^{[citation needed]}).

If you want to dig further into the concept of angular momentum, the following may be of interest to you:

Angular momentum is conserved in a system where there is no net external torque, and its conservation helps explain many diverse phenomena. For example, the increase in rotational speed of a spinning figure skater as the skater’s arms are contracted is a consequence of conservation of angular momentum.  Moreover, angular momentum conservation has numerous applications in physics and engineering (e.g. the gyrocompass).  See here, here and here to get the math behind conservation of angular momentum, angular momentum, and torque.

 Tidal Effect

Dr Nicola Scafetta of the Active Cavity Radiometer Solar Irradiance Monitor Lab (ACRIM) and Duke University has recently published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics  “Does the Sun Work as a nuclear fusion amplifier of planetary tidal forces?  Etc.”

Lets look at a summary of some of the planetary interactions with the Sun that affect the nominal 11 year solar cycle that he listed in his abstract to the article:

Numerous empirical evidences suggest that planetary tides may influence solar activity. In particular, it has been shown that: (1) the well-known 11-year Schwabe sunspot number cycle is constrained between the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn, 􏰁 9:93 year, and the tidal orbital period of Jupiter, 􏰁 11:86 year, and a model based on these cycles can reconstruct solar dynamics at multiple time scales (Scafetta, in press); (2) a measure of the alignment of Venus, Earth and Jupiter reveals quasi 11.07-year cycles that are well correlated to the 11-year Schwabe solar cycles; and (3) there exists a 11.08 year cyclical recurrence in the solar jerk-shock vector, which is induced mostly by Mercury and Venus

Scafetta proposes that the planets cause surface tides on the Sun.  While very small, he believes the tidal gravitational potential energy dissipated in the Sun by the tides, may produce irradiance output oscillations with a sufficient magnitude to influence the solar dynamo processes.   More from the abstract:

Here we explain how a first order magnification factor can be roughly calculated using an adaptation of the well-known mass-luminosity relation for main-sequence stars similar to the Sun. This strategy yields a conversion factor between the solar luminosity and the potential gravitational power associated to the mass lost by nuclear fusion: the average estimated amplification factor is A􏰂4:25×10^6. We use this magnification factor to evaluate the theoretical luminosity oscillations that planetary tides may potentially stimulate inside the solar core by making its nuclear fusion rate oscillate. By converting the power related to this energy into solar irradiance units at 1 AU we find that the tidal oscillations may be able to theoretically induce an oscillating luminosity increase from 0.05–0.65 W/m^2 to 0.25–1.63 W/m^2, which is a range compatible with the ACRIM satellite observed total solar irradiance fluctuations. In conclusion, the Sun, by means of its nuclear active core, may be working as a great amplifier of the small planetary tidal energy dissipated in it. The amplified signal should be sufficiently energetic to synchronize solar dynamics with the planetary frequencies and activate internal resonance mechanisms, which then generate and interfere with the solar dynamo cycle to shape solar dynamics, as further explained in Scafetta (in press). A section is devoted to explain how the traditional objections to the planetary theory of solar variation can be rebutted.

Both theories have many critics.  I am not knowledgeable enough to support or deny these theories.   However,  Dr Hathaway’s comment about varying speeds in the Great Conveyor Belt would lend some support to these theories especially Landscheidts.   Anyway, the Sun is where the action is with respect to global climate change.  And it will probably be a number of years before any theory wins out.  Remember how much bad press the cosmic ray theory got from the experts, and this case I mean the warmers.  Now after some work at CERN, it is looking like a winner, just not yet announced.  There is hope.

cbdakota

cbdakota

Solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

Piers Corbyn wrote:

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Read entire article at:

John O’Sullivan: Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize Jury Placed Under Investigation http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9066
]]> http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/january-2012-global-temperature/ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:42:03 +0000 cbdakota http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/january-2012-global-temperature/ The only global temperature report that I really trust is the UAH satellite readings that Dr Roy Spencer manages.  The temperature in January took the expected drop.

Chart courtesy of Dr Spencer’s  Global Warming blog. (click on chart to enlarge)

The January temperature is equivalent to the January 2011 but below 2009 and 2010 January temps.  If the forecast of a very weak solar Cycle 25  comes to pass, we should see some record lows in coming years.

cbdakota

]]> http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/forecasting-cycle-25-great-conveyor-belt-theory/ Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:59:30 +0000 cbdakota http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/forecasting-cycle-25-great-conveyor-belt-theory/ The last post reviewed a forecasted solar Cycle 25 based upon measuring the magnetic field of sunspots.   This posting uses the speed of the Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt(GCB) to forecast Cycle 25. This method considers sunspots as an indicator but the GCB speed determines how many sunspots appear.  I am not sure who, but perhaps Dibyendu Nandi of the Indian Institute of Science and Education and Research in Kolkata (aka, Calcutta) and his team  can claim this theory. The GCB has been studied for a number of years.  NASA Science says: “The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to complete one circuit.“  “The plasma flows travel along the Sun’s surface and plunge inward at the poles, and reappear again at the Sun’s equator.  When the sunspots begin to decay, surface currents sweep up their magnetic remains and pull them down inside the star; 300,000km below the surface, the sun’s magnetic dynamo amplifies the decaying magnetic fields.  Re-animated the sunspots become buoyant and bob up to the surface like a cork in water—voila! A new solar cycle is born.”

These belts can be likened to the Earth’s ocean currents.

NASA’s artistic sketch of the belt.

A May 2006 posting on Science News has Dr Hathaway predicting that Cycle 24 sunspots numbers would be perhaps greater than Cycle 23 (this part of the prediction is not faring well.) and Cycle 25 would be perhaps half of Cycle 23.  Dr Hathaway said that these predictions were based on a deceleration of these belts to 0.75m/s in the North and 0.35m/s in the south.  He said “We’ve never seen speeds so low”.    Hathaway in a September 2011 posting said:”…….that as the number of sunspots increases on the Sun, the speed of the GCB decreases and vice versa: fewer sunspots and the faster the speed of the Belt.”   This is somewhat contradictory,  because if the GCB speed is slowing down, based on his theory,  there would be more spots.

Dr. Nandi  adds some clarification when he lays out his theory here: “The fast-moving belt rapidly dragged sunspot corpses down to sun’s inner dynamo for amplification. At first glance, this might seem to boost sunspot production, but no. When the remains of old sunspots reached the dynamo, they rode the belt through the amplification zone too hastily for full re-animation.  Sunspot production was stunted.”  Nandi  then adds that late in the decade, “….according to the model, the Conveyor Belt slowed down again, allowing magnetic fields to spend more time in the amplification zone, but the damage was already done.  New sunspots were in short supply.  Adding insult to injury, the slow moving belt did little to assist re-animated sunspots on their journey back to the surface, delaying the onset of Solar Cycle 24.”  

Hathaway’s sunspot predictions are in Red.   Also on this chart, in Pink, are the Cycle 24 sunspot predictions by NCAR’s Mausumi Dikpata and her team based on their observations of the GCB.

Nandi  has made a presentation “Forecasting the Solar Cycle”at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, USA  but I can not access the paper.

This theory says that the change of speed of the GCB predestines the solar çycle  robustness or lack there of.  For some insight of how they are able to track these plasma flows/GCBs/jet streams, click here.

Like the declining sunspot magnetic field, the theory of the GCB seem to me to be describing consequences of some other forcing that is not known or understood.  I think it likely that Cycle 25 will be weak.  However, until we know more about the functioning of the Sun,  we will be forecasting like the weather casters—tomorrow will be rainy because rain clouds are blowing our way from the west.  Like all of these theories, only time will tell if they are really capable of predicting accurately Cycle strength.

We are not through with Cycle prediction theories.  Next posting will discuss the bicentennial decrease in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) unbalancing the Earth’s thermal budget.

cbdakota

]]> http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/forecasting-cycle-25-livingston-and-penn-method/ Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:08:36 +0000 cbdakota http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/forecasting-cycle-25-livingston-and-penn-method/ As Cycle 24 has not yet achieved a Solar Maximum, it may seem a little early to begin forecasting Cycle 25.  But several forecasts have been made.  A recent posting in WattsUpWithThat notes such forecasts by Penn and Livingston and by David Hathaway.

You remember from previous postings on this site, that Penn and Livingston have been measuring Sunspot magnetic field strength and the temperature and luminosity of the umbra.   They began this study in 1990 and as of 2010 they have analyzed some 17,000 spots. Plotted on the chart below are data from their paper LONG-TERM EVOLUTION OF SUNSPOT MAGNETIC FIELDS through 2010 and additional readings since:

Chart courtesy of Lief Svalgaard

Focusing on the bottom chart, sunspots are plotted against magnetic field strength and time. The individual dots are representative of sunspots.  The larger blue dot represents the normalized sunspot number for each year. The black line is the trend line for the umbral magnetic field of the sunspots. The horizontal blue line indexes a magnetic field strength of ca. 1500 Gauss. Note that the sunspots extend vertically above the trend line, and below the trend line but not below the 1500 Gauss line.  The two scientists speculate that sunspots do not form when the magnetic field strength is less than 1500 Gauss.  If the trend line continues on this same slope, somewhere around the year 2025+/- at least half of the sunspots will disappear.

Using a linear decrease of 65 Gauss per year and a cycle duration of 11 years, they computed the magnetic probability distribution function for Cycles 24 and 25. Using this, a sunspot number is forecast. Cycles 24 and 25 are shown along with actual data from Cycle 23 in the chart below from their paper:

Chart provided by David Archibald, from the paper by Livingston and Penn.

The contrast of Cycle 24 and specifically Cycle 25 from the completed Cycle 23 is quite dramatic.  The Cycle 24 forecast, so far, seems to be reasonably in tune with actual data.  At a Cycle 25 sunspot number of 7, David Archibald says it would be the lowest sunspot number for a Cycle in 300 years!!!!

Livingston and Penn say that if the linear decrease were 50 Gauss per year rather than 65, the Cycle 25 sunspot number would be 20 which is still a very low number.

Livingston and Penn caution that it is always risky to extrapolate linear trends.

Next posting on this topic will be an examination of David Hathaway’s 2006 forecast of both Cycle 24 and Cycle 25.  It will also discuss one of the underlying theories for the decrease in sunspots.

cbdakota

]]> http://co2insanity.com/2011/06/20/whistleblower-outs-nasa-for-hiding-data-of-global-cooling/ Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:04:31 +0000 co2insanity http://co2insanity.com/2011/06/20/whistleblower-outs-nasa-for-hiding-data-of-global-cooling/ http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/16/lawrence-solomon-nasa-scientist-reverses-sunspot-prediction-bolstering-global-cooling-theory/ Thu, 16 Jun 2011 19:37:03 +0000 Lawrence Solomon http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/16/lawrence-solomon-nasa-scientist-reverses-sunspot-prediction-bolstering-global-cooling-theory/ Five years ago, NASA’s David Hathaway, one of the world’s leading authorities on the solar cycle, predicted that the Sun was about to enter an unusually intense period of sunspot activity. Referring to Solar Cycle 24, the 11-year period that we’re now in, Hathaway predicted that it “looks like it’s going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago.”

Because sunspot activity has historically predicted periods of global warming and global cooling – lots of sunspots translates into lots of warming and vice versa – Hathaway’s study – presented at a December 2006 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco — acted to support global warming theorists and to discredit the various solar scientists who believe that Earth is about to enter a prolonged period of cooling.

Today, Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, believes his earlier prediction was wrong. Rather than hitting a peak of 160 sunspots, and possibly 185, as he predicted in 2006, he now believes that the Sun’s activity will decline dramatically. The current prediction, to less than half that of 2006, “would make this the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years,” he now states.

All this comes amid a flurry of other reports, including from scientists at the U.S. National Solar Observatory (NSO) and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, indicating that global cooling, and perhaps even a new Little Ice Age, is on its way.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now, but we see no sign of it,” states Frank Hill of the U.S. National Solar Observatory, who recently co-authored another paper in the field. “This indicates that the start of Cycle 25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

The upshot is chilling:  “If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades,” Hill states. “That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate.”

The notion of another Little Ice Age, as happened in the last half of the 1600s, is no longer dismissed. Asks the National Solar Observatory:  “An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.”

To see the historic number of sunspots, including the number during the Little Ice Age in the mid 1600s, click here.

To see Hathaway’s new, dramatically lowered prediction, click here.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com.

]]> http://theboldcorsicanflame.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/warning-suns-activity-this-could-be-the-last-solar-maximum-well-see-for-a-few-decades-that-would-affect-everything-from-space-exploration-to-earths-climate-leading-possibly-to-a-new-ice-age/ Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:29:58 +0000 theboldcorsicanflame http://theboldcorsicanflame.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/warning-suns-activity-this-could-be-the-last-solar-maximum-well-see-for-a-few-decades-that-would-affect-everything-from-space-exploration-to-earths-climate-leading-possibly-to-a-new-ice-age/ ]]> http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/does-solar-cycle-25-predict-good-weather-for-the-future-reign-of-the-messiah/ Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:54:24 +0000 Marianne http://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/does-solar-cycle-25-predict-good-weather-for-the-future-reign-of-the-messiah/

Apparently, we will have global cooling, not global warming by 2020. This means less electromagnetic activity against the earth’s atmosphere, less earth storms, etc. Click here for more

]]> http://solarscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/nasa-predicts-weak-solar-cycle-25/ Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:44:22 +0000 John A http://solarscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/nasa-predicts-weak-solar-cycle-25/ Yes. The same organization and the same scientist that predicted a strong solar cycle 24 according to a prediction based on changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, predicts a weak solar cycle 25 based on observations of the Sun (for a change)

May 10, 2006: The Sun’s Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. “It’s off the bottom of the charts,” he says. “This has important repercussions for future solar activity.”

The Great Conveyor Belt is a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun. It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit. Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle, and that’s why the slowdown is important.

“Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,” says Hathaway. “That’s how it has been since the late 19th century.” In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. “We’ve never seen speeds so low.”

According to theory and observation, the speed of the belt foretells the intensity of sunspot activity ~20 years in the future. A slow belt means lower solar activity; a fast belt means stronger activity.

So what does this mean for solar cycle 24? Nothing. The slowdown now doesn’t affect the next solar cycle (because that must follow the behavior of the Earth’s magnetic field somehow)

Here’s the prediction

What’s more disturbing to me is that NASA refuses to contemplate any changes to the Earth’s climate even though the last three times we had such a weak solar cycle, the Earth cooled (the Dalton minimum centered around 1790-1810, the Maunder Minimum from around 1645 to 1710, the Sporer Minimum centered around 1420 to 1570). Obviously these three events coinciding with global cooling are just coincidences.

But NASA does love a good catastrophic spin on its Earth science articles:

This is interesting news for astronauts. Solar Cycle 25 is when the Vision for Space Exploration should be in full flower, with men and women back on the Moon preparing to go to Mars. A weak solar cycle means they won’t have to worry so much about solar flares and radiation storms.

On the other hand, they will have to worry more about cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are high-energy particles from deep space; they penetrate metal, plastic, flesh and bone. Astronauts exposed to cosmic rays develop an increased risk of cancer, cataracts and other maladies. Ironically, solar explosions, which produce their own deadly radiation, sweep away the even deadlier cosmic rays. As flares subside, cosmic rays intensify—yin, yang.

Yin, Yang? What about the clear connection between cosmic rays and cloudiness? Nowhere to be seen.

The article does make mention of the prediction that I’ve previously cited:

Hathaway’s prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: “Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt.”

Well we’ll see. There is a Russian report than claims that Solar Cycle 24 will also be weak, but I’ll have to source it.

By the way, Wikipedia’s report on the Dalton Minimum is pathetic, a clear result of the oppressive censorship of the Global Warmers on solar influence on Earth’s recent climate. The entire article reads:

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, lasting from about 1790 to 1820. Like the Maunder Minimum and Sporer Minimum it coincided with a period of lower than average global temperatures. Low solar activity seems to be strongly correlated with global cooling, although the mechanism by which solar activity causes climate change is not well understood.

Yes. Really.

]]>