JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted: Little Ice Age, part II?

Ominously, the embryonic markers of solar cycle 25 are three years late and are nowhere to be seen. Scientists are asking if this could be the start of another  Maunder-type Minimum. (The bummer with that, being that during those 70 quiet years the world slipped into the Little Ice Age; animals froze in barns, people starved, disease raged… see The brutal cold of the Maunder Minimum and the Great Irish Frost for some light entertainment.)

If it were going to happen, we ought to start preparing now, right? You know, take precautions, “buy insurance”, figure out if CO2 actually does any useful warming (and if so, pump more of it into our atmosphere). You know it makes sense…

Seriously, if the cold is coming, we really ought to pay attention. — Jo

————————————————————

From the press release today (June 14):

Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted

This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Dr. Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network, said of the results. “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

solar sun spot jet streams missing cycle 24 and 25

Normally cycles begin with activity at 50 degrees (See 1999). New jet stream activity should have started in 2008 inside the circles.

Latitude-time plots of jet streams under the Sun’s surface show the surprising shutdown of the solar cycle mechanism. New jet streams typically form at about 50 degrees latitude (as in 1999 on this plot) and are associated with the following solar cycle 11 years later. New jet streams associated with a future 2018-2020 solar maximum were expected to form by 2008 but are not present even now, indicating a delayed or missing Cycle 25.

“We expected to see the start of the zonal flow for Cycle 25 by now,” Hill explained, “but we see no sign of it. This indicates that the start of Cycle  25 may be delayed to 2021 or 2022, or may not happen at all.”

Press release

Solar activity, sunspots, butterfly, jet streams missing

The normal solar cycle produces a predictable pattern. For the first time in decades, solar scientists are not sure what will happen next.

Spot numbers and other solar activity rise and fall about every 11 years, which is half of the Sun’s 22-year magnetic interval since the Sun’s magnetic poles reverse with each cycle. An immediate  question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots during 1645-1715.

A dormant sun (sunspot-wise) versus an active sun.

See all the graphs and images from the press release.

http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

If it were going to happen, we ought to start preparing now, right?

You know, take precautions, buy insurance, figure out if CO2 actually does any useful warming, and if so, pump more of it into our atmosphere.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted: Little Ice Age, part II?, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3gopkmt

105 comments to Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted: Little Ice Age, part II?

  • #
    NicG.

    Absolutely right Jo!

    Everybody has been fighting their corner, whether alarmist or skeptic, so hard that this could easily have been missed in the noise. And cold is a much bigger problem than warm in my opinion. If the focus had truly been on the science I think this would be headline news now.

    Thought; Are the pollies now going to tax us if we don’t put enough CO2 into the atmosphere?

    Cheers
    NicG

    00

  • #
    Don B

    That press release was from June 14, 2011, and not “today.”

    REPLY: Thanks Don, fixed –Jo

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    If the warmist scientists who speculated that more CO2 in the atmosphere would increase the chance of El Nino are correct then should we not also pump more CO2 into the air to end the La Nina drought in the Horn of Africa.
    Also just like adding More CO2 helps food production in real greenhouses should we not help the poor and hungry of the world by adding more of this lovely life giving gas to the air?
    I wonder what Mr K Rudd would think of this moral dilemma. We can provide longer term help for the poor and hungry people in Africa and with a simple gov’t subsidy to encourage production of the beautiful dioxide. Perhaps some generous bankers may chip in to help prevent the cold and hunger from destroying the environment also. *Insert pictures of poor cold and hungry but cute animals here*

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Julia promised on becoming Prime Minister that she would “open up the curtains and let the Sun shine in.”

    When will she see the lght?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    What do you suppose they’ll say maybe: “Human activity affects more than first thought! It’s not global, it’s solar system wide!!!! or “human activity is causing the Sun to nap!”. Or Human excesses have really got the solar system upset! Or will they finally just shut up and go away?

    00

  • #
    Warwick

    Bugger, I was hoping when I retired I could just stay where I was and let the warming come to me, now it looks like I’m going to have to pack up and move to Qld when I get too old to keep chopping firewood in winter. wish the bloody scientists/politicians would just get some consensus going

    00

  • #
    TinyCO2

    One of the oldest questions I’ve held about climate change has been ‘why aren’t we slipping into an ice age?’ While I’ve not seen a definitive explanation the closest to an answer I’ve seen is that since we are actually overdue, it probably isn’t going to happen under this combination of precession, obliquity etc and we are heading into the second half of a double interglacial like 400,000 years ago. But then I began to wonder if glaciation isn’t just a matter of Milankovitch cycles but is there a second trigger from the sun itself? Is the Maunder Minimum a common feature of the sun? Could there be longer periods of spotlessness? If Svensmark is right, what would many years of low solar activity do to the global temperature when insolation was already low?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see the Goreacle’s day of mudslinging has started and gets free coverage in The West:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10262440/al-gore-climate-science-reality-versus-republicans/

    The fact that he has become so shrill in his attacks is perhaps a positive sign? I think even he knows the end is nigh for his ridiculous rants.

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    Well Al has to hurry. The legislation needs to be in place before the atmosphere cools and shows up the whole AGW as one big scam.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    While we would welcome the end of the global warming hysteria, we do NOT want global cooling, let alone an ice age, little or otherwise. My gut feeling says we are going into a new climate regime, but my skeptical head says let’s continue to look and observe before we start a global cooling hysteria. Would be a nice irony though.

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Look here..
    http://www.landscheidt.info/

    Then Carl Smith in 2007 using JPL data and his own programming skills plotted the Angular Momentum of the Sun. This graph I believe is the Rosetta stone of solar science.

    The graph just down the page see SC24 the ‘Landscheidt’ minimum about 2013.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    We are almost certainly headed into another LIA. The real question is: how severe will it be? On a happy note, CAGW will by then have been relegated to the dust bin of history.
    Unfortunately, the poor will suffer the most while the limousine liberals gin up another threat against humanity in order to bind us in green chains and force us to live out the remainder of our “managed” lives eating granola and shivering in a cave.

    Fortunately, as recent events have shown, the political winds are shifting. The next president, barring a political miracle, will be a republican. Also, the republicans will probably have solid control of both houses. At that point, the CAGW scam will collapse and the next apocalypse requiring us all to sacrifice our liberties for the common good will undoubtedly be foisted upon us by the far left and their useful idiots.

    We need to defund this scam, defang the EPA and put people ahead of fleas, ticks and anything else that lives on this planet! The republicans may not prepare us for a LIA but at least we will not be squandering precious resources on the non emergency CAGW!

    00

  • #
    pat

    not “serious” enough to put in print, tho, NYT?

    14 Sep: NYT Blog: James Kanter: ‘Serious’ Error Found in Carbon Savings for Biofuels
    Instead, the European Union has been “double counting” some of the savings, according to the draft opinion, which was prepared by the committee in May and viewed this week by The International Herald Tribune and The New York Times…
    The committee’s opinion backs up earlier criticism by environmental groups including Birdlife International and the European Environmental Bureau, which likened the carbon accounting error by European Union officials to a “subprime carbon mortgage that it may never be able to pay back.”
    The committee is not ruling out the use of biofuels, however, and in other examples it identified optimal sites for planting bioenergy crops, including former tropical forests now overrun by grasses that frequently catch on fire.
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/serious-error-found-in-carbon-savings-for-biofuels/

    14 Sept: NYT Blog: James Kanter: European Commission Disputes Opinion on Biofuels Emissions
    The European Commission acknowledged on Wednesday that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the use of some forms of bioenergy — burning wood for electricity, for example — could be overestimated because of a “serious accounting error.”
    But the commission rejected the conclusions of a draft opinion by the European Environment Agency Scientific Committee that said that similar problems afflict the calculation of emissions from biofuels for transportation…
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/european-commission-disputes-opinion-on-biofuels-emissions/

    Kanter says NYT’s International Herald Tribune also saw the report, yet a search on their site for a story shows only the two blog entries above, plus a multitude of links to commercial Biofuel websites!

    http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=biofuels&srchst=cse

    only reuters carrying this story – no other MSM except NYT blog for now. must not rock the CAGW boat, must we?

    00

  • #
    Andrew Marven

    What alarmist nonsense ! what rot

    Apocalyptic cold – oh come now. Where’s your scepticism.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Eddy Aruda:
    Sadly it comes too late for Australia… we are having the CO2 tax forced upon us regardless. This will be Julia’s lasting legacy, a policy enacted from a lie padded with utruths, and ridiculously difficult to unwind.

    She will then get dumped and Rudd (or someone else) replace her, being able to detach themselves from the toxic legislation. You’d almost think it was planned this way…

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Not a bad time to reappraise this post from last year. So far the prediction in Fig 5 has pretty much come out right.

    For some perspective during the Dalton the army of Napoleon froze in Russia. Admittedly then the Sun had some volcanic help, this time we can hope she won’t.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Mark D.:
    September 15th, 2011 at 6:14 am
    What do you suppose they’ll say maybe: “Human activity affects more than first thought! It’s not global, it’s solar system wide!!!! or “human activity is causing the Sun to nap!”. Or Human excesses have really got the solar system upset! Or will they finally just shut up and go away?

    No such luck Mark. We’ve been here before, during the 1970s. I was living in Boulder back then, and I remember our contingent of government-dole climate scientists pushing the idea that a new ice age was nigh, and (guess what!) Human industrial emissions were to blame. The only cure was to scale back energy use drastically.

    Many of the same people are now pushing CAGW, with the same “cure”. Almost makes you think they have a hidden agenda…

    Fortunately, there were no countries dumb enough to impose the Kyoto Protocol upon themselves (except for lip service, that is). Had a few done that, the alarmists would cry “victory” when the next Ice Age arrives. Of course, that would be just a few years before they would be tarred and feathered, but the tribe (of climate scientists) is not known for taking the long view, else they would pay more attention to Aesop’s “The boy who cried wolf”.

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Eddy Aruda:
    September 15th, 2011 at 8:09 am

    On a happy note, CAGW will by then have been relegated to the dust bin of history.

    Hi Eddy. I agree, but will it be again replaced by CAGC?

    For a wonderful snapshot of the rise and rise of the manmade CO2 scare in either cooling or warming, check out this article by the late great John L Daly titled Stephen Schneider – Greenhouse Superstar

    http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

    Some excerpts for those new to the AGW debate or who don’t follow links.

    Before Global Warming became the politically correct scientific fashion of the 1990s, the reverse situation existed in the 1970s, where it had become a scientific article of faith that the Ice Age was about to happen. Even the US National Academy of Sciences adopted this view.

    “There is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling
    could befall the Earth within the next 100 years.”

    Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141

    ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
    Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.

    “Abstract. Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg.K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

    In 1971, Schneider claimed that an 800% increase in CO2 would be needed to raise global temperature by +2 deg. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg.

    In 1971, Schneider promoted the idea that the next Ice Age was imminent. By the mid-1980′s and into the 1990s, he equally vigorously promoted the idea that world was about to suffer a catastrophe caused by Global Warming.

    In both cases, Schneider was publicly active in promoting both views, wheras other scientists who may have had a change of view due to new information, did so in the relative privacy of the scientific community, avoiding unnecessary publicity. Not so with Schneider. He revelled in publicity, and promoted both viewpoints at different points in time with equal enthusiasm.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    It’s not at all certain that we are heading into another LIA. We understand the sun even less than we do the earth’s climate. Unfounded catastrophism is irrational whether it’s fear of global warming/cooling, alien invasion or the second coming.

    Hey, never let a good crisis go to waste!

    What we should prepare for is the now sprawling climate change global bureaucracy, institutions, the UN and vested NGOs—starting with our own Orwellian Ministry for Climate Change—to began manoeuvring to take ownership of which ever way the wind blows. After all, it’s hardly fear of CAGW that they are on about but “climate change.” And no bureaucracy in history has ever willingly declared their mission complete, problem solved, and offered to peacefully disband… No, no, now that we have created the Climate Change Monster, it will continue to grow and grasp for ever more power no matter what the weather forecast.

    The same sinister socio-economic agenda of government intrusion and appropriation of our civil liberties, property, our aspirations for our children and even the ability to feed, house and clothe our families as we wish will remain the same whether the Earth is cooling or warming. The Greens, Labor and the ABC will soon forget they ever worried for a moment that the Earth was warming and without apology or shame exploit whatever the latest scare to peddle social and economic collectivism. More and more government intrusion is the cure for everything that ails the world! 97% of all scientists agree, peer-reviewed studies show!

    The climate war is the new culture war. It won’t just go away even when defeated by reason and the course of weather. Why? Because its was never about reason or science at all, but a pathological political agenda that has already been thoroughly discredited by a century of dystopian national experiments resulting in the death of hundreds of millions of people. So why should the voice of reason—or even a cooling sun—prove anymore dissuasive to those who would enslave us for our own good?

    Blinded by their own moral self-righteousness the Green collectivist wowsers will simply shape-shift into the whatever the next moral posturing best fits the latest weather report. But their solution will never change—a concentration of power and authority in a centralised, unelected elite along with ever increasing persecution of political minorities and vilification of free expression.

    The mortal enemies of human liberty have already seized control the very language we all must employ even to think about the issues involved. Climate Change, climate disruption, carbon pollution, environmental justice, “the science is settled”, “fighting climate change,” “those who deny climate change”, etc. These Orwellian propaganda devices are designed to limit our ability to think and discuss the issue of authoritarianism and statist economic control as anything more than a holy war being waged by heroes eager to sacrifice to save the world from destruction by sinful and greedy “denialists”.

    The real “greatest moral challenge of our day” is to expose this fraud and drag the demagogues who profit from it into the broad light of day to make a full account of their insanity before the high court of reason.

    00

  • #
    pat

    15 Sept: Ninemsn: Belinda Merhab: Giant globe to spread carbon tax message
    Launching the relay in Melbourne on Thursday, Environment Victoria’s campaign director Mark Wakeham said the globe was a symbol of support for the government’s proposed tax, to counter the protests against it…
    “We want to highlight that there’s a lot of enthusiasm, there’s a lot of Australians who actually look forward to the introduction of the legislation and can see that it will bring on new clean energy jobs which we need.”…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8302449/giant-globe-to-spread-carbon-tax-message

    Wakeham’s profile:

    pdf: Mark Wakeham, Campaigns Director, Environment Victoria
    Mark Wakeham is the Campaigns Director for Environment Victoria, Victoria’s peak environment organisation. Prior to that he worked as an Energy campaigner for Greenpeace Australia Pacific for three years where he helped build a movement of Australians wanting climate change action and successfully worked for the introduction of renewable energy and energy efficiency targets nationally and in Victoria and New South Wales. He has worked in the solar industry, was
    Coordinator of the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory for five years, was a lecturer at the Northern Territory University, and was a radio operator in the Army. He has degrees in Economics, Australian History and Adult Education, as well as a large student debt
    http://www.all-energy.com.au/userfiles/file/Mark_Wakeham.pdf

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Is this another “last nail in the coffin” moment?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    If the sun is decreasing its energy output, then this is rather interesting because how can a nuclear fusion process achieve this decrease? What might be the physics behind this alleged process?

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Jo,

    from what you say in the final comment in your lead piece, you don’t agree with this quote (which is also opinion) from the NSO press release?

    We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Well, at least we know that there is one idiot reading the posts here – anyone who thumbed down my valid, science based, question has to be one.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    When we witnessed the breakup of the Soviet Union, the great hope of the populations of the various states was that thing would be better with self determination.

    We are currently witnessing the EU feeling the real costs that come with “having a big family”. I suspect that a number of citizens from countries moving to join the EU will show a sudden loss of enthusiasm.

    It will be interesting ( in a very Chinese sense) to follow the enthusiasm with which member states of the UN feel about the “Global Government” ( Fabian ) ideal as the reality unfolds.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    September 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
    Is this another “last nail in the coffin” moment?

    Hard to tell when you’re inside the coffin, isn’t it John?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    September 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
    Is this another “last nail in the coffin” moment?

    I imagine it’s hard to tell when you’re inside the coffin, eh John?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Mod: sorry about the double post — slow computer at the library. Feel free to delete either one.

    (You are forgiven) CTS
    [The first battle of the Mods! CTS deleted the extra, I felt the subtle nuance of expression needs the "thumbs" to decide which should go.] ED

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Loius in #22: “If the sun is decreasing its energy output, then this is rather interesting because how can a nuclear fusion process achieve this decrease? What might be the physics behind this alleged process?”

    It does sound as though you are questioning that the sun can have variable energy output (rather than genuinely asking what the mechanism is)… when it is commonly accepted that a sun’s output varies over its lifetime.

    So anyway… what are you leading to with your line of posting?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    MattB, #29

    Nuclear fusion, or fission for that matter, is invariant and needs to be moderated externally. The point I am leading to is that the standard solar model is not supported by the observations. If the standard model is wrong, then that implies that deductions from it might be also problematical, and could lead to the realisation that CAGW is truly a crackpot hypothesis.

    In any case can you explain why radioactivity can wax and wane systematically without any external influence?

    00

  • #
    Paul R

    The good news is that by the time the solar minima bites our media will be under the control of a government funded regulator. It will always be warm and cozy under that arrangement and any cooling that may be noticed by the unwashed masses will be attributed to the Stirling efforts of Julia Gillard and her right side of history government in reining in our runaway bastard climate.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Well Louis if you look at the American Institute of Physics they seem pretty comfortable with the idea of variable solar output. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jo – in the OP you hypothesise that if CO2 was useful in warming then maybe we should be pumping as much out as we can. It is an interesting dilemma… If CO2 did warm, would it be acceptable to pump it out as much as possible to warm things up through a period of cool, knowing that when you leave the period of cool the GHGs will make things far too warm.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Louis – I’d be cautious about using the ‘invariant’ word in view of findings like these from a few years ago. Its possible that a good close look at the various vibrational modes, the detailed magnetic field variations and the Sun’s other variations such as diameter, would show up unsuspected fusion rate changes. The latter for example would change the rates of fusion due to simple pressure changes. All complex theories use simplifying approximations – sometimes these can bite.

    I’m no fan of Oliver’s material however.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Oh we know it varies MattB, just that this flatly contradicts the assertion that radioactivity etc is considered invariant, so how about explaining how nuclear fusion can wax and wane, as it must to produce solar energy variations, by itself – and don’t waste our time with appeals to authority either.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bruce of Newcastle,

    Mainstream science uses “invariant” in terms of radioactive decay as the basis for radiometric dating.

    I don’t, but its mainstream science that is peddling the CAGW hypothesis – and ice ages due to a variation in solar output is not one using the standard solar model.

    Just how can changes in pressure affect fusion, by the way, as this is the first time I’ve heard of that mechanism, and is there experimental evidence for this ?

    00

  • #
    pat

    fortunately, i no longer watch ABC, but note all the spin from the name of the program to every detail in the summary. also note – as with everything in the MSM – there is NEVER a mention of MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING:

    15 Sept: ABC Four Corners: The Carbon War
    By Reporter Marian Wilkinson and Producer Deb Masters
    Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull was the first casualty. He lost his job because he supported a price on carbon. The former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was next to go, after his polls collapsed when he dropped his plan to put a price on carbon. Now Prime Minister Julia Gillard faces an electoral revolt led by activists who say she doesn’t have a mandate to introduce a carbon tax…
    There’s little doubt that climate change and carbon reduction has become a deeply divisive issue in Australian politics – scientists and politicians have received death threats, the Prime Minister has been abused, talkback radio hosts have led protests to Canberra.
    Reporter Marian Wilkinson investigates the campaign against the carbon tax, talking to Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and other key players. She also talks to the scientists who have been threatened and asks why the issue has created so much division…
    ‘The Carbon War’, presented by Kerry O’Brien, goes to air on Monday 19th September…
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/09/15/3318364.htm

    only “activists” are against the carbon (dioxide) taxm ABC?
    threats to pollies, threats to CAGW scientists? ABC should be shut down.

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    from a random and probably unreliable website… Oliver is just presenting the latest thinking on an ancient hypothesis

    One of the first theories based on scientific evidence rather than mythology was put forth by Anaxagoras in the 5th century BC, who witnessed a wagon-sized meteorite strike the earth. Because of its fiery nature, he assumed that it had broken off from the Sun. Since the meteorite was iron, he deduced that the Sun must be a huge ball of burning hot iron 35 miles in diameter 4000 miles away.

    00

  • #

    ‘’PREDICTING’’ future sunspots is really good one; they can see what’s happening close to the center in the sun…?! here is where the science for it comes from: too many Skeptics are sticking their nose in the temperature data = can see that is no GLOBAL warming = sunspots are as ‘’backdoor exit’’ for the Warmist. That, and other backdoors have being closed, by real proofs, on my website. Oxygen and nitrogen control the temperature in the planet’s atmosphere, not the Warmist, not the sun or the CO2:

    When is a solar eclipse, lots of sunlight is reflected, but doesn’t get cooler for one billionth of a degree. Leave solar and galactic influences to horoscope people. Discover that oxygen +nitrogen are 998999ppm, they are controlling the temperature; not the propaganda that is boiling the Sceptic’s brains. When they warm up, for any reason, they expand up into temperature of minus -90⁰C. Intercept appropriate extra coldness – that extra coldness falls some other place; because of fast spinning of the planet. The warmer one part gets = colder other places. Crapping about the sun’s intensity, is only creating ‘’backdoor exit’’ for the Warmist – why should the Warmist stop lying? A: because Skeptics are using outdated theories. Point something wrong in the Q&A below; challenge for all of you:

    Q: when you warm up oxygen + nitrogen by 6⁰C, why do they expand much more, than when you warm them by only 2⁰C? A: because they need to increase the volume of the atmosphere more, to intercept extra coldness to equalize. Q: when you warm O+N for 20minutes, why they don’t shrink after 10 minutes? A: because they need to keep intercepting extra coldness as long as they are warmer, to keep the temperature overall in the troposphere to be same. Q: after 20 minutes if O+N cool to previous temperature; why they don’t stay expanded for another hour? A: if they did, they would have redirected enough extra coldness to freeze all the tropical rivers and lakes. Q:can extra CO2 prevent oxygen and nitrogen of expanding? A: those two gases expand trough hi-tensile walls of a hand-grenade when warmed. Q: why O+N shrink when cooled instead? A: to minimize exposure and intercept less coldness, until they get to previous temperature. Q: do those two gases expand when warmed / shrink when cooled; because they have nothing better to do, or they are regulating the temperature in the atmosphere to be always the same. Q: for the last 3 Januaries, when was record coldness in Europe /USA, why on the same dates was record heat in Australia? To balance. Same as children’s see-saw plank in the park. The more one side goes up = the more the other side goes down. Both sides don’t go up or down simultaneously. Laws of physics don’t work ‘’only sometime’’! start relying on what is reliable; the laws of physics.

    If you are calling yourself ‘’Skeptic’’ should have an open mind. Closed mind is as a closed parachute = not very useful to the owner. I know what you know; but you don’t know what I know = I have unfair advantage: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com Scrutinize Mitich formulas – you will have solid evidences. The temperature in the atmosphere doesn’t go up and down as a yo-yo. Just warmth and coldness shift places, otherwise wouldn’t be any winds. (as shifting money from one pocket into another, doesn’t make you richer or poorer) being scared of my proofs /facts, Julia will make you poorer.

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    @39 What?

    re the last paragraph: How do you know what I know? What gives you this mystical ability?

    Well I clicked on your website so whatever your post was about, I suspect you got the result you wanted.

    00

  • #

    I’m a skeptic on cooling, a skeptic on warming, less skeptical on PDO-related cyclical change. I spend a lot of time in the open, in the forest, and in my bamboo. After 2007 there was a fundamental change to our mid-coast NSW climate, and I’m amazed by how few people remark on it. We still have westerlies in winter/spring, but they no longer dominate. Even in the recent El Nino, and around the Big Dust, much of spring felt like a sappy autumn. Oceanic winds are dominating, and the weather is starting to resemble what I can remember of the fifties.

    In 2005, in Italy, I was startled and disoriented by thunder in winter. Since 2008, we’ve had thunder regularly through winter, even in August, which for many years was a month of dry westerlies with frigid nights under clear skies.

    I’m surprised so little is made of this.

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    I gave 26 and 27 a thumbs up just to make the job hard for the MODS :-) )

    [I don't know about CTS but I'm enjoying the drama :) ] ED

    00

  • #

    Hey, I clicked earlier on 27 trying to even it up!

    I reckon if both hit the yellow zone then none should be removed. Start clicking, people.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    As you say, very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 … the Sun was actually well observed during this time and the lack of sunspots is well documented. This period also corresponds to the Little Ice Age. Rivers froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes.

    NASA now predicts the smallest sunspot cycle in over 100 years.

    Has anyone asked Al Gore about this? Oh, I forgot, he doesn’t take questions.

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    In regards to Louis’s question, we know the sun goes through an 11 year cycle were basically nothing changes albeit slight variations in mag fields, solar winds, sunspots and TSI. This 11 year cycle would be constant if it not for Jupiter and to a lesser extent Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

    These large planets drag the sun out of its barycentre as they orbit around it and depending on their positions depends on how far the sun is draged. For example the jovian year is 11.8 so that means that everytime Jupiter approaches the sun the sun is a little more advanced in its cycle and over time Jupiter exerts tremendous forces on the sun.

    If the sun is approaching maximum in the cycle and Jupiter swings by it gives the sun a kick so we get periods of very short, sharp and shit hot cycles, if Jupiter swings past the sun when it is approaching minimum we get a series of very long and low cycles.

    This is what happened for cycles 19, 20, 21 & 22. SC 23 began as normal but Jupiter arrived on the down side of the cycle which is why SC23 went for almost 13 years, SC 24 will be low and long and SC 25 will be even lower and just as long.

    SC26, 27, 28 etc should see an improvement (average of 11 year cycles, after this we will go back to the short sharp and shit hot cycles again.

    The only variation to this is the position of the other 3 gas giants, if they are on the same side as Jupiter the effects are worse if they are in opposition the effects are more mild.

    All the cycles of the sun that we are aware of can be explained by this mechanism.

    00

  • #
    Paul Pierett

    There are different levels of sunspot activity.

    The Mini-Ice Age was the result of near zero inconsistant sunspot actiivity for nearly a century. That was the Mini-Ice Age and Scientists use the lead up and following centuries to bracket the 1600s.

    That is wrong. Each century is different and should be measured and evaluated separately.

    To say we are heading to a mini-ice age is wrong. We are in a minimum that is presently between the 1700s and 1800s minimum.

    That will make the 21st Century cooler than what we are leaving. How much?

    New Territory! THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DATA FOR THIS! THIS IS CLIMATE HISTORY IN THE MAKING!

    Give it a rest.

    Paul Pierett
    Auburndale, Florida

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Doesn’t look like Gore’s latest project is going very well ( after the first 5 hrs ).
    Check out WUWT for an hour by hour “report”.

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    In regards to ice ages,

    According to Plimer (yes i know he is an idiot but that aside) he states that we used to have ice ages based on precession ie every 40,000 years but now we have them based on orbital changes (100K) however, the M cycles do not coincide with every ice age!!!!!!

    The reasons why to all of the above are unknown, interestingly the Earths magnetic field has been dropping and the altlantic anomoly is getting weaker and larger all the time. When the sun goes quite as it is now its magnetic field gets weaker and with it so does ours and what phenomenom fits beautifully with ice ages……………..you guessed it magnetic reversals.

    There is a guy by the name of Leif Svalgaard who sits on the NASA board that predicts the sun cycles, you can converse with this guy over on solarcycle24.com. He is very approachable and answers even the dumb questions, anyway he was saying that all the things that they use to measure were we are in the cycle in the past are no out the window, ie sun spots, 10.7 cm flux, solar winds, mag fields. They are all so crap they dont know how to measure the progress of SC 24…………..well all except for one. The polar mag fields are still there however the polar mag feilds are telling him SC 25 is upon us.

    This does not bode well because the cycle will be really, really short and if so then they will have to tear up everything they thought they knew about the sun and start again.

    Hope this helps

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    JB in 21 i gave you a thumbs up because you made me laugh………thanks mate.

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT – Greg Combett just announced in Question Time that Ford UK’s diesel engine plant is now fully operating on Wind Power.

    No doubt he read this article

    The last comment points to the actual facts.

    Ford is being a little economical with the truth – the engine plant is not self sufficient thanks to these turbines. Think about it – if there is no wind, then the turbines do not turn, no electricity is produced and no engines are made. Of course it’s not self sufficient.

    The plant still needs the 11Kv supplied from the local power station (actually 33Kv stepped down to 11Kv). In fact the turbines need 11Kv themselves to function. Yes, they do reduce the amount of CO2 that Ford would otherwise have consumed, but they are not getting ‘free’ electricity. The turbines are actually owned and maintained by a separate company from which Ford buys the electricity (at a premium).

    I don’t know if Ford benefits financially from the UK government for reducing their CO2 consumption, but it wouldn’t surprise me if this was the main reason for the installation of the turbines. Not to mention the publicity it generates.

    00

  • #

    [...] Major Drop in Solar Activity Predicted: Little Ice Age, part II? [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark

    Tim #44

    Indeed, the noted English astronomer John Flamsteed (1646-1719) wrote in his observing diary sometime in 1684 “…first sunspot for nine years”.

    Of course, better gear now would be able to discern very small sunspots which wouldn’t have been visible to Flamsteed.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Crakar24

    This my explain it

    From Bolt

    FRAN KELLY (ABC Radio National):

    Australian newspaper columnist Niki Savva wrote recently that you were the Cabinet Minister who had confessed privately, quote, “that political life had become intolerable, the carbon tax was destroying the Government and you have grave doubts about climate change, revealing yourself as one more sceptic in the Government.” That’s a quote from Niki Savva’s column. Did you say all those things?

    STEPHEN CONROY (Communications Minister):

    Well it’s a little hard to comment on an unnamed source and the context of a conversation.

    FRAN KELLY:

    Did you say those things?

    STEPHEN CONROY:
    So, I’m not in a position to speculate about uninformed sources.

    FRAN KELLY:

    Well, can you speculate on whether you said anything like that?

    STEPHEN CONROY:
    I said – look, let’s be clear. I support the Government’s climate change position. The economy needs to be reformed, waiting as the Tony Abbott policy is, is not going to bring forward the reforms necessary for a cleaner economy so I absolutely support the Government’s policy.

    FRAN KELLY:

    Do you have grave doubts about climate change?

    STEPHEN CONROY:

    I absolutely support the Government’s policy position. There’s been plenty of debate and plenty of argument. The majority of scientists argue that it’s real, that humans are effecting this and the Government is responding and I support that.

    FRAN KELLY:

    So you don’t think climate change is not real? You don’t have great doubts about it?

    STEPHEN CONROY:
    I think the climate’s absolutely changing. There’s not an argument that the climate is changing

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Mark in 51,

    Of course, better gear now would be able to discern very small sunspots which wouldn’t have been visible to Flamsteed.

    Two things that need to be considered, very clouded days and sats that can see a sunspot the size of a pixel.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    While the sunspot count is up today:
    http://www.spaceweather.com/
    This means the TSI is going to be down…so watch the Gore effect short Artic melt season.
    Just how fast will the ice grow?
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
    Gore effect
    ” In one use, the term is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and meetings associated with global warming, with particular emphasis on events attended by Gore.”
    Wiki Thanks to Spreckt.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Louis Hissink:
    September 15th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    Bruce of Newcastle,

    Mainstream science uses “invariant” in terms of radioactive decay as the basis for radiometric dating.

    I don’t, but its mainstream science that is peddling the CAGW hypothesis – and ice ages due to a variation in solar output is not one using the standard solar model.

    Just how can changes in pressure affect fusion, by the way, as this is the first time I’ve heard of that mechanism, and is there experimental evidence for this ?

    Hi Louis, I’ve looked into the state of solar models (some years ago, when I was interested in a satelite project here in Boulder to measure the Sun’s diameter very accurately. The rate of fusion in the core is highly sensitive to pressure and temperature (according to the models), as these are the things that determine how often atoms collide with enough force to overcome the coulomb repulsion of the nuclei and allow the short range nuclear forces to take over. This sensitivity has been experimentally verified by our experience with experimental fusion reactors.

    When the first solar neutrino detector came on line (S. Dakota gold mine full of carbon tetrachloride watched by hundreds of photomultiplier tubes) it only detected 1/3 of the predicted neutrinos. The favored explanation today is that neutrinos “oscillate” between types that can be detected by the means used in S. Dakota, and types that cannot be so detected.

    There is a simpler explanation, however — one that has actual evidence supporting it (puts on helmet to deflect rocks thrown by particle physicists): That is, that the fusion fires in the Sun have actually “damped down” — the Sun is on “pilot light” mode.

    So, why don’t we notice this? There is some fascinating historical evidence (described below) that the Sun’s diameter has shrunk by about 1% over the last 3-4 centuries. Interestingly, this is just the right amount for the release of gravitional potential energy to make up for the “missing” fusion energy, so the Sun would have stayed at almost constant brightness. Of course, this is not sustainable, as the Sun would shrink to a white dwarf in a few hundred millennia and we would be toast (or, rather, icicles), so it would have to be part of a long-term cycle.

    The evidence is that, as you go back in time, there are too many “ring-of-fire” solar eclipses. A ring-of-fire eclipse occurs when the Moon doesn’t quite cover the entire solar disk. These are really easy to distinguish, as you never see the corona during a ring-of-fire eclipse, but easily see it when the entire solar disk is covered. (The corona is about 1 million times less bright than the solar surface, and you can’t see both at once.) Since we have an extremly accurate model of the Moon’s orbit, the most likely explanation is that the Sun was actually slightly larger a few centuries ago.

    I don’t know what happened to the satelite project — perhaps it was sabotaged by the particle physicists? ;-)

    The solar models back then (and probably still) were mostly static models — they assumed everything was in equilibrium. The Sun, however, is obviously not a static system. The list of things that solar models can’t reproduce is somewhat sobering:

    1) They can’t explain where the Sun’s magnetic field comes from, and how it can reverse every 11 years.

    2) They can’t explain (except in the most vague, handwaving way) what causes Sunspots, and how they are maintained.

    3) They can’t explain why the Sun’s equator rotates signifiantly faster than the poles.

    4) They can’t explain why the solar corona (extended atmosphere) is so much hotter than the solar surface (millions of degrees vs. thousands of degrees).

    & etc, & etc.

    And, of course, this lack of understanding of the mechanisms driving the dynamic sun are why we can’t predict its future behavior with any degree of certainty.

    It’s not necessary to postulate external influences to have the Sun behave variably (even chaoticaly), although a number of external mechanisms have been postulated: Varying torque on the Sun by the changing configuration of the large planets, infalls of galactic material, etc. There are completely isolated systems that exhibit chaotic, unpredictable behavior. Weakly coupled pendulums are an example that is often demonstrated in undergraduate physics labs. When two pendulums are mounted on the same, not completely rigid, substrate, they devolve into chaotic motion that can’t be predicted more than a short time into the future. This was reputedly discovered when two highly accurate pendulum clocks were mounted on the same wall. Another chaotic system is three or more objects gravitationally orbiting each other — hence the Solar system isn’t stable over billions of years; A fact that Newton was able to determine and which drove him nuts.

    You can judge the state of the current solar models by the fact that NASA has had to “update” their predictions of the current solar cycle every 2 or 3 years — and it looks like they will have to do so yet again.

    So, Solar models are about as good as Climate models — and probably for similar reasons. The current predictions, however, are not based on models, but on the observations that the next solar cycle (#25) is not starting up. Sort of like being able to “predict” that we are in an Ice Age when the glaciers all start growing rapidly.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Janama @ 49

    Perhaps you should send a copy of this to Greg Combett

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/13/windy-day-power.html#comments

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Very interesting BobC; all science is filtered through the vanities of the scientists and the stronger the declaration of certainty the bigger the ego; it takes a very special person to admit to not knowing; we will never hear, except by accident as with Trenberth, such admissions from the climate scientists.

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Jb,

    You still haven’t answered my question from the previous thread:

    JB @ 39
    Wasn’t that “no carbon tax” chanting group of oldies in Canberra a sight for sore eyes?
    Of course Julia will end up on the wrong side of history. The side that tried to do something but were defeated by the side that wanted to do nothing.
    The “do nothing” side will end up running the place and trying to cope with the problems that warming causes.
    Oh well.
    Can you please explain to us how this “Carbon” tax is going to lower global temps??? Prevent future “climate disasters”?? How it’s going to do ANYTHING other than cost all of us more money and put that money into the pockets of the financial elite??
    Come on JB, any intelligent answer will do.
    But I won’t be holding my breath!!!

    What are you trying to avoid?? Your complete lack of evidence??

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Crackar – your post on the mechanisms for solar variation is great, thanks. Have I stepped in to some strange universe where you are postive scientific sense… even bagging out Plimer?

    So Louis what do you say to Crackar in #45?

    00

  • #
  • #
    Crakar24

    MattB,

    No MattB you have not stepped into a strange universe, this is reality how does it feel?

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Thanks Scaper, great article.

    My favorite quote from it is actually a quote from the APS –

    “The word ‘incontrovertible’ … is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century.”
    LESS THAN 1 Degree in a century??!!??!! OH MY GOD THE CATASTROPHE!!!!!

    All I have to say to the JB’s and Mattb’s of the world is “Get some perspective!!!”

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    BobC:
    September 15th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    The evidence is that, as you go back in time, there are too many “ring-of-fire” solar eclipses. A ring-of-fire eclipse occurs when the Moon doesn’t quite cover the entire solar disk. These are really easy to distinguish, as you never see the corona during a ring-of-fire eclipse, but easily see it when the entire solar disk is covered. (The corona is about 1 million times less bright than the solar surface, and you can’t see both at once.) Since we have an extremly accurate model of the Moon’s orbit, the most likely explanation is that the Sun was actually slightly larger a few centuries ago.

    Um does the logic go the other way round with this?
    Anyway how is this for an alternative explanation for this same problem?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8
    “Since we have an extremly accurate model of the Moon’s orbit,”
    Then the Earth would need to have grown also.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Bit more on the sun skipping sc24.

    http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf

    “In late 2006 and early 2007, the preferred
    direction was that of the active regions of the coming sunspot cycle (Cycle 24),
    but in late 2008 and early 2009 the preferred direction has been that of the ac-
    tive regions of sunspot cycle 25. These findings are consistent with the results of
    Wilson et al. (1988) that there is a high latitude expansion of the solar activity
    cycle.”

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    wow… so now the moon has stretch marks.

    Maybe the growing moon is affecting climate too. It is blocking more of the sun – OR it is reflecting more energy to the Earth that might otherwise have passed us by.

    Whichever way you look at it, too much sun generates many theories.

    00

  • #
  • #
    tertius

    OT, but an interesting bit of history.

    A decade or so ago Ian Plimer was the darling of the ABC, much loved by Robin Williams, voted Australian Skeptic of the Year, accorded heaps of positive media coverage and accolades for the book he wrote attacking creationists, instigated a high profile court case against a creationist who claimed to have found the remains of Noah’s Ark on the slopes of Mt Ararat in Turkey, and barnstormed the country attacking creationists and fundamentalist Christians.

    He was the hero of the day, the true scientist par excellence defeating religious “nonsense” with the swift, sharp sword of science.

    But how times have changed, and how the mighty have fallen.

    Plimer is now persona non gratia in many of the forums that once welcomed him with open arms. He is still attacking religion and using science as his weapon but now that the religious beliefs he confronts are the CAGW beliefs of the elites, both political and scientific, and not those of a minority of despised and derided Christians. He has now found himself ridiculed, attacked and insulted by his former admirers and sycophants. Yesterday’s hero, today’s “idiot”.

    They love you when you’re putting the boot into an easy target, but they will never forgive you bucking the status quo.

    00

  • #
    Jon-Anders Grannes

    Here we have a Sun that is the energybase for almost every living beeing on Earth. And that is the basis for almost everything in this Sunsystem.

    My body is sun energy based. But I have too get this energy from plants or algea/planton, not directly but trough “animals/fish” that catch and eat plants or algea/planton.

    More than 99% of live on Earth is based on getting light energy from the Sun!

    Fossil energy like coal, gas and oil is actually fossil energy from the Sun!

    And how much does UNEP/IPCC credit the Sun for climatic changes?

    “Mostly harmless!” climatically???
    Sounds like a Monty Python show?

    “Meaning in Life is satisfying your Needs and Instincts.

    Meaning of Life is satisfying Needs and Instincts that Life does not satisfy”

    Jon-Anders Grannes(Not dead yet)

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Louis Hissink: #35

    … radioactivity … is considered invariant, so how about explaining how nuclear fusion can wax and wane, as it must to produce solar energy variations, by itself …

    Two thoughts, neither backed by evidence …

    1) The invariability of radioactivity (in relation to radiometric dating) is usually applied to nuclear fission. The sun is, I understand, a nuclear fusion reaction.

    2) If my understanding that the sun is a nuclear fusion reaction is correct, then the sun could be said to consist of plasma, which would be succeptable to magnetic pressure (from other astronomical bodies, variations in the magnetic flux, etc.), and thus appear to vary in radioactivity when measured from one point of reference – the earth.

    Just musing …..

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Siliggy (@64):
    That’s a pretty strange hypothesis alright. I prefer the Sun shrinking since, because it is a ball of gas, there is no conservation of mass problem to deal with.

    It seems to me that, if this effect is accelerating as he maintains, it would be measurable. He claims that the Earth doubled in size in the last 65 million years — that is, from 4000 to 8000 mi in diameter. This works out to ~10 cm/year. This would be measurable by GPS measurements, laser bounce off the retroreflectors on the moon (left by Apollo astronauts), changes in satelite orbits, and probably by astronomical measurements at distantly separated obseratories.

    He could convert his idea from wild hypothesis to fact (or fiction) by doing these crucial experiments. I tend to think that these experiments have already been done ad hoc: If the Earth were growing by 10 cm diameter/year, the effects would have already shown up in surveys, etc.

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Louis at #36

    My primary evidence that increased pressure increases rate of fusion is that we are not orbiting a black hole (OK, neutron star, Sol ain’t a heavyweight). If fusion rate is reduced with pressure then the Sun would collapse on itself for any vibrationally derived increase in core pressure. A classic positive feedback since it is the energy generated by the fusion reactions that prevent gravitational collapse.

    Now you can argue that adiabatic compression means it is the temperature that is doing it. Maybe so, but I’d want to look at the detailed math particularly the quantum effects eg tunnelling. Above my pay grade unfortunately. On the other hand increased temperature IS increased pressure at constant volume. Or if you apply a cyclic compressional force because of oscillations (ie like a spring in 3 dimensions) then you are decreasing the volume, increasing the pressure and increasing the density, which is apparently important to the rate of fusion.

    Finally although it is fission not fusion we all know you have to implode a fissionable core to make it go bank satisfactorily. Density being the key in this case.

    I will say you’ve caught me out as I’ve not done enough recent reading on this area, but 1st principles do say that pressure must be important, though it maybe because the reverse faces of the (4th dimensional) coin are density and temperature. Is it a nuclear chicken or a radioactive egg?

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    BobC:
    September 15th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
    Yes it is different for sure. Our planet is bombarded with cosmic dust and meteorite showers etc and must grow. if it does not there is a “conservation of mass problem’. The real question is how fast? I will not hijack this place to much more with it but there is a lot more to it that fits well. The repulsive rather than attractive theory of gravity requires that the planet both grows and accumulates energy(abiotic oil etc). The theory of gravity now requires repulsive dark energy and dark matter. The results of this experiment have never been otherwise explained: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast06aug99_1/
    GPS Cannot find the link right now but the clocks have a timing problem that does not match relativity.

    This works out to ~10 cm/year.

    Those mirrors showed “a rate of two-and-a-half inches a year.” (increasing distance).
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
    The changes in satellite orbits would be put down to gravity anomalies.
    look at the oddball shape: here.
    I intend to put that rabbit back in the hat and pull out another that suits this solar cycle topic a lot better if i can stay awake.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Bruce @ #72

    Black holes do not have any physical existence, so ?

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Rereke @ #70

    To fuse or to fiss, that is the question Horatio!

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    The other rabbit.
    During the solar cycle not only does the TSI change but so does the spectrum of light from the sun: As explained by Jasper Kirkby from 25:20 min into this video to 27min:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I
    Now planckton can cause a change in cloud cover:
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html
    and Planckton responsd to UV light:
    http://www.photobiology.info/Hader.html
    So there is another (non cosmic ray) way that the solar cycle can modulate cloud albedo!

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Louis Hissink: #75

    My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;

    Coral is far more red than her lips’ red;

    If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;

    If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.

    I have seen roses damask’d, red and white,

    But no such roses see I in her cheeks;

    And in some perfumes is there more delight

    Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.

    I love to hear her speak, yet well I know

    That music hath a far more pleasing sound;

    I grant I never saw a goddess go;

    My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.

    And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare

    As any she belied with false compare.

    William Shakespeare

    (1564 – 1616)

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Siliggy @ 78

    The other rabbit….

    Did somebody call?

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Ice ages – Hit the Northern Hemisphere badly, but take a while to
    set in, about 15 cold winters will indicate how fast they will set
    in. However, its the Gulf Stream if it stops or is diverted that
    will effect how cold it gets. There are reports that Gulf Stream
    is slowing one of the reasons being the big oil spill in the Gulf
    of Mexico. I don’t believe that. But a combination of the Gulf
    Stream slowing, the sun’s activity, cosmic rays, ocean currents,
    even volcanic eruptions if they happen at the same time, we could be heading for a LIA. And pumping out more carbon emissions won’t warm us up. We’ll survive better now. Sea levels will drop eventually. It’s the ability to grow enough food. Remember Australia was sustaining a hunter and gatherer people when other places in the world were not inhabited nor NZ or Japan.

    They have known that for years, and they are trying to make money out of AGW madness before it is too late. Then take credit the
    world is cooling because of clean energy investment. Trouble is
    Wrong if it gets too cold how will they explain that.

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    No not bunnies crazy rabbits.

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Is it cold in hell ???

    Will PM Juliar be able to tell us how cold it is ????

    00

  • #
    BobC

    OT, but:

    Siliggy:

    September 15th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
    GPS Cannot find the link right now but the clocks have a timing problem that does not match relativity.

    A straight-forward application of Special Relativity would predict that you cannot synchronize a set of non co-moving clocks that also have different accelerations.

    The existance of the GPS system proves that you can. Since the GPS clocks have “relativistic” corrections applied to them, it is commonly thought that they confirm SR and GR. However, the “SR” correction is applied for the speed of the satelite with respect to the non-rotating Earth-centered coordinates — not w.r.t. the observer. It isn’t clear how one can torture this result from SR, although it hasn’t stopped people from trying. (Perhaps Lionell can fill us in on the canonical ‘solution’.)

    (And why Earth-centered coordinates? Why not Sun-centered, or galactic-centered? Another mystery.)

    Myself, I just accept that there are two “theories of Relativity”: The mathematical one that produces paradoxes, and “Engineering Relativity” where you simply do what works. GPS shows that they are not the same.

    00

  • #

    We know about the Arctic Melt scare of the 1920s, drummed up the The Washington Post. And there were those famous Time and Newsweek articles hyping Global Cooling in the 70s. It’s interesting that the New York Times, now so squarely in the warming business, has form as a cooler-booster. This from 1895:

    PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.

    The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar region…

    And these headlines from 1976, when all the really cool journos really were coolists:

    Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable

    Why do we read or listen to this slop? Nobody knows what the climate is going to do. Turn on the a/c if you’re hot. Turn on the heater if you’re cold. Be civilised and be grateful. Burn some bloody coal.

    00

  • #
    mkelly

    Andrew Marven:
    September 15th, 2011 at 8:30 am
    What alarmist nonsense ! what rot

    Apocalyptic cold – oh come now. Where’s your scepticism.

    Andrew I am never sceptical of things that have happened already. I am not sceptical of the sun rising in the east tomorrow nor that an apple if dropped will fall to the ground.

    However, CO2 has never caused an increase in temperture in the past so why should it now.

    00

  • #
    debbie

    But but but Mosomoso!
    We have a whole new bureacracy that is going to ‘manage’ the climate.
    Why would they need to know what it’s going to do?
    :)

    00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    “It’s dead, Jim. Someone tell Al.”

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/

    This is the latest by L&P, there prediction of no sun spots by 2015 is well on track, magnetic fields are continuing to drop as expected.

    All the “signs” are pointing to a new LIA or similar, quiet sun record cold in the NH, sun spots dissappearing sc24 appears to be coming to an end after only 3 years.

    The only problem i can see here is that if the red devil gets her legislation through in time she will claim the credit.

    00

  • #
    john of sunbury

    to Wes George @19 …

    Brilliantly expressed. I wish I had a fraction of your eloquence and clear-headedness. Thankyou.

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    I echo those words John, but how do we weed out these people and expose them for what they really are?

    I have recently had a conversation with a greenie friend of mine (i will use those words loosely), he was claiming that we need to use less power and there was not enough food to go around, i let him talk and talk and the more he talked the scarier he became to me at least but to others listening he had an aura surrounding him.

    In the end he proposed we reduce the worlds population as it is the only way to solve this crisis, i asked “but how do we do this?”, “do we kill all the first born sons?” He went into his rant of sterilisation, reducing populations in 3rd world countries etc.

    Then i made a suggestion that removed the aura, i said “If you wish to be taken seriously then i suggest you top yourself, but do it properly of course, build up a following on face book and twitter over a period of months and then on the big day top yourself live streaming over the internet and if we are lucky you may take a few of your followers with you”, “that should solve our population problem”.

    The discussion ended in tears of laughter, the only person not laughing sulked off looking for new people to convert.

    00

  • #

    Posted on September 16, 2011 09:52

    Australians have less than a week to make submissions on Julia Gillard’s carbon tax that she explicitly promised to never introduce.

    Yesterday the Labor-Greens dominated inquiry into the 1,100-plus pages of carbon tax legislation resolved to give Australians just six days to make submissions to the inquiry, despite the massive impact this tax will have.

    ‪The committee was also advised that there was not enough time to hold hearings in all states. Most Australians will miss out on the chance to be heard, with those outside of the eastern states or in regional Australia likely to have to resort to phone or video conferencing at best.

    ‪Despite Julia Gillard making it as hard as possible for Australians to have their say on her carbon tax, I urge Australians to make their views known by lodging a submission, no matter how brief.

    Written submissions must be received by next Thursday, 22 September. They can be emailed to jscacefl@aph.gov.au or posted to the select committee care of Parliament House, Canberra.

    ‪Labor is already denying Australians a vote on whether or not to have a carbon tax, but hopefully people will not allow Julia Gillard’s tactics to silence them as well.

    (Please do not get into anymore “cross posting” in the blog.You made 3 identical comments in three different Jo Nova posts,in a few minutes) CTS

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Crakar24 @ 91

    AHH

    “”i suggest you top yourself”"

    Almost the sampson solution?

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    Our earth is a chaotic unplumbed airconditioner. The tropics are a thermostat that unnervingly regardless of solar activity, pump into the oceans a regulated amount of heat controlled by cloud cover and storm activity.

    The temperate zones control any increase or decrease in the worlds heat content by variations in cloud cover that have been shown to be variable with the sun.

    The poles are the other end of the thermostat as the radiators of an air conditioning system. The lag time for the dumping of heat is years as the ocean heat impinges on the ice. Contrary to popular opinion the melting of the polar caps is the dumping of the extra heat from a decade or so before. The resultant open water dumps heat to space in huge amounts, thus cooling the oceans.

    Three large solar cycles have come to an end and almost all of that heat input is now lost as shown by a flat temp and ocean heat and levels.

    Sadly we are in for a double wammy as the inertia in the system will keep dumping heat for a while and with a recalcitrant sun is not being replaced. If the sun does not awaken soon it will not be a little blip and a reset thermostat. Remembering that the tropic heat imput is virtually constant and unvarying, temperate zone input will be low and the ocean temperatures will fall, hello cold.

    Weather is the result of our chaotic unplumbed heat pump Earth and is oblivious to tax’s or CO2.

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Wayne, s. Job:

    A good read at 94

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Yes Mary, (and Wayne) 94 is right on!

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    MFJ in 93,

    Yeah it is, never looked at it that way, kinda makes sense though both are driven by blind faith.

    cheers

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The Titanic was doing so well — right up to the time it hit that iceberg that wasn’t supposed to be that far south. Reality is so doggone inconvenient sometimes.

    00

  • #

    Bruce of New Castle and Louise 37 /38 comments. Fusion is very simple, needs 2 factors;heat and pressure.

    1] apart of the top 200km on the sun, the whole mas of the sun has more than enough heat for fusion. It needs only 21000C degrees, to start fusion; then fusion itself supports the chain reaction. Therefore, the heat on the sun is only used as ”back-door exit” for the Warmist. To justify; why the phony GLOBAL warming is not happening. It’s dirty trick. The mass of the sun is not just; put another log on the fire.

    The second factor, pressure. Pressure on the most of the body of the sun is not suffusion to sustain fusion – thanks lord; otherwise, the sun would have combusted in 10 minutes.

    Pressure is produced by the sun’s gravity – which is very stable. Here is how it happens: the rocks /dirt on the earth are heavy, because of the gravity. If you are covered by 5m of dirt, will not be as heavy as if you are covered by 55m of dirt. Same laws of physics work inside the sun. Because hydrogen is not heavy; the pressure is only enough deep down towards the centre. Most probably the sun has heavy elements, but they are in the centre; to provide extra gravity, but not pressure (because they are BELOW than where fusion is happening. The sun is bigger target than planets = must have being getting more meteors and comets slamming; than any of the planets.

    Same as a pot on the stove, baubles jump occasionally; even though is same temperature. That radiation / brrrp, or sunspots affect electronics on the earth, but cannot increase the temperature in the atmosphere. Because: as soon as the air gets warmer by 0,000001 degree – air instantly expands accordantly up. Intercepts extra coldness to keep the same temperature /equalize. The lack of understanding how the warmth regulation function in the troposphere is making the people for searching for phony explanations.

    To make it simpler: for hydrogen bomb is needed a very strong chamber that can sustain the pressure for a second. 2] deuterium as hydrogen. 3] a small atom bomb inside as catalyst. To produce the heat and pressure instantly = that starts the fusion. Reason that scientist will never produce electricity from fusion is because: there is no alloy on the earth that can be in solid state on temperature of over 21000 degrees Centigrade for prolong period; and will never be one. They can keep researching, money is good, beats working on the farm or on building-site. But don’t rely on that electricity.

    All the Warmist are from professions, on government money / the ones that cannot produce any goods. Talking about the sunspots and extra radiation is silly; if you know how the self-adjusting mechanism works – to be same warmth units in the troposphere; every hour of every day / year and millennia – even in big ice age. To get all the proofs and correct informations, my English needs improving; but what is on my website can be all proven now. We should be talking how to improve the climate, not to stop it from changing. Climate never stopped changing and never will. But climate can change for better also. http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS GLOBAL WARMING – climate to change, does’t need any phony GLOBAL warming. Water changes the climate, not CO2. ”CLIMATE CHANGE” IS WARMIST’ FIG LEAF, TO COVER THEIR SHAME FOR LYING ABOUT THE NON-EXISTENT GLOBAL WARMING. CLIMATIC CHANGES ARE A NATURAL PHENOMENA / NECESSARY. GLOBAL WARMING IS PHENOMENAL LIE. I urge all Australians: to sign a petition on my blog: asking Green senator Brown and Tim Flannery to agree; to be attached to a lie detector with a simple question: do they believe in GLOBAL warming?!?!?! No, not in climate change, climate is changing constantly; but do they believe in GLOBAL warming? If proven that they do, then vote for them

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    Yairs! Ice Age Alarmism! Jo you’re a coldist!

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Tristan @ 100

    Yairs! Global Warming Alarmism! Tristan you’re a cultist!

    .

    Child.

    00

  • #

    re; bush bunny @81: where you are; you should know that water changes /controls the climate. Not CO2, or sun’s radiation, or any of the factors used as fodder for the Urban Sheep. From Brisbane to Perth, there are 70 different climates. Same sun radiation / sunspots affect. But completely extreme climates. Because H2O controls the climate. More storm-water saved on the land = climate improves. Lack of water inland – climate deteriorates.Why green senator / Tim Flannery are against extra dams? When water from dam /irrigation evaporates – decreases evaporation on land – trees / crops benefit.

    More dry heat produced on the land – that dry heat prepares the vegetation for big bushfires the previous 11 months. That dry heat goes over the sea and destroys the moisture created there in the air – which belongs to other countries to benefit. Belongs for renewal of the ice around Antarctic. That dry heat makes the clouds to go around Australia as cars around traffic island. Well bunny, if anybody wants to know all the real proofs / facts; it’s all here: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

    As long as the Skeptics are barking at the sun / moon and other outdated theories – Warmist will flourish. WHO IS GUILTY? Same sun radiation is in Brazil, Simpson desert, Burma and Sahara / same CO2 level. Why is different climates? How to improve the climate? Why the climatic changes shouldn’t be put in the same basket with the phony GLOBAL warming? It’s all there and much more. So, is not to blame the Warmist, but to have stomach for the truth.

    We should start talking how to improve the climate; not to stop it from changing. Do you like Australian climate, in which animals, properties and people are incinerated in bushfires? When storms come = instant devastating floods. Reason: because was dry for too long – soil is not water receptive; doesn’t absorb /retain moisture. Because was no dams, to improve the climate for beneficial bacteria in the soil. Because dams can contain part of the flood-water – that will improve the soil to be receptive for next floods. Same problems with Pakistan’s floods. They have lots of suitable places for dams – to produce electricity and to keep the vegetation alive in dry. Instead, money is squandered to stop the climate from changing…??? Would the climate stop changing if is no people?

    Australian climate was getting dryer 300-500y ago. When was less cars on the roads and even less electricity was used; was more eucalyptus trees than we can ever plant; but climate was getting dryer. Dams improved the climate a bit on SE corner, but the increased dry on the rest is retaliating. Get all what is on my website – will be like turning the lights on.

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    *slow clap*

    00

  • #

    I just have to make another comment about the ‘’sunspots’’ confusion: it’s shocking that some of our Russian friends don’t step in and make some comments on the subject. For them politics is propaganda; but science is science… unlike on the west, where science is the top propaganda garbage: here is to bring them to reality:

    The heat released from the surface of the sun this morning, was produced a million years ago; deep down towards the center. The sun is a large body – temperature doesn’t go up and down as a yo-yo. You know why cat’s body cools faster than elephants – the sun is much bigger than elephant. The heat produced by fusion – takes about a million years to travel to the surface – mixes with the existing heat in its travel. For god sake, it takes 1000y for the heat from the center of the earth to travel to the surface – even though earth crust is made from metallic ores that are perfect heat conductors.
    The ‘’sunspots’’ are completely irrelevant for the heat on the sun. The origin of those sunspots are: carbon meteors / comets fallen millions of years ago – are gone to the center of the sun. Carbon as heavier than hydrogen – is below the core where fusion is happening. But sometime, the newly helium produced – drops deeper – stirs up some carbon – comes to the surface – after short time, carbon as heavier sinks back down. It’s happening as: newly helium as heavier than hydrogen drops below and disturbs some carbon; same as when you dive in the river water – you touch the bottom and disturb some mud – that mud goes to the surface of the pool – than falls down again. That doesn’t change the water temperature.

    Constantly used words as: from observation, noise; is desperation for the person to sound knowledgeable, nothing more. For the first time ever; powerful enough filter was made 2y ago, to be able to see the surface of the sun. Reports from dark ages about bigger and smaller sunspots is fabrication and exaggerations. There are plenty reports from that time people’s observation reporting dragons with seven head; when all the Smarty Skeptics know that dragons have only six heads…?

    Isaac Newton reporting bigger crown around the moon during the eclipse. Verdict: the sun is shrinking…?! Is it? If the center of the shadow was in Lion, Newton was in London – will not describe the eclipse as somebody in Lion would. I.e. if you look at the cat from the from – you will describe it with two eyes; but from behind – only one eye, same cat. That is not science. If Newton did know that one day will be used for misleading – he would have definitely attached a warning note.

    Verdict: trying to justify why GLOBAL warming is not happening; by ‘’sunspots’’ are cooling the planet; is same as: the fire dragon is gone to bed… Face it that the dragon doesn’t exist. The phony GLOBAL warming didn’t exist – the phony GLOBAL cooling doesn’t exist. The planet has same warmth units this year as every year for the last 14 million years. The report from the 6000 monitoring places for IPCC was warming WHERE THE THERMOMETERS ARE. On the 30 000m3 around those thermometers = on how many cubic meters temperature is not monitored? Some other places was colder at that time. Now thermometers register cooling = some other places is a bit warmer. Warmist will not admit the truth, to incriminate themselves. Especially when the Skeptics are blindly helping them. Let this comment stay as a record.

    Dear Skeptics, stop providing ‘’backdoor exits’’ for the leading Warmist – they will spit the dummy. I am asking the sceptical people that don’t believe those fairytales, to join me and present the real proofs; http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Look what Britain is facing

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/272457/Britain-faces-an-early-big-freeze

    Another blow to catastrophic man-made global warmists!!!!!!!!!

    00