Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sunspots and a possible new ice age (updated)
American Thinker ^ | April 22, 2008 | Thomas Lifson

Posted on 04/23/2008 8:44:43 AM PDT by neverdem

There is some serious evidence accumulating that we may be on the brink of not just global cooling, but an ice age. Sunspots are historically correlated with temperature on earth. During the Dalton Minimum, beginning in 1790, the number of sunspots was low, as the earth's climate turned cold for a few decades. At you can see live images of the sun taken from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory in space. Right now there is but one tiny sunspot.

Phil Chapman, geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco, writes in The Australian about the frightening prospect that this year's ferocious winter and decline in average  temperature is the herald of serious cooling:

The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.  [....]

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

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

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

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

Unlike Al Gore, I would never claim that the science is settled and that the data are all available. We need to watch the sunspot activity, and keep our fingers crossed that the world is not entering a new "little ice age."

If we are entering a period of low sunspot activity and global cooling, then the changes demanded by Warmists, especially the conversion of crops to fuel use, would be catastrophic. But I doubt Al Gore' Nobel Prize will ever be revoked. The fraud Rigoberta Menchu still has her Peace Prize, after all.

Hat tip: Bryan Demko

It turns out that scientists at a joint National Center for Atmospheric research/multi-university research center in Boulder, CO issued a forecast of increased sunspot activity more than two years ago.

The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun's cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.

The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy. The forecasts are generated, in part, by tracking the subsurface movements of the sunspot remnants of the previous two solar cycles. The team is publishing its forecast in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

"Our model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool," says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR's High Altitude Observatory that also includes Peter Gilman and Giuliana de Toma. [....]

The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012.

It seems that early 2008 has come and gone. And they seemed pretty proud of their model, too.

Posted at 12:54 PM | Email |

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalcooling; globalwarming; iceage; newiceage; sunspots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last
To: neverdem

Amazing how 2012 keeps popping up in everything.

Gore and his buddies are going to be praying for a little global warming if we slide into an ice age.

61 posted on 04/23/2008 9:52:36 PM PDT by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Steve McIntyre.
62 posted on 04/24/2008 6:16:35 AM PDT by jwalsh07 (El Nino is climate, La Nina is weather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Can you tell me the name of the thread it’s in? (On ClimateAudit)

63 posted on 04/24/2008 9:54:12 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Click on the link Cog! :-}

64 posted on 04/24/2008 1:38:04 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (El Nino is climate, La Nina is weather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Sorry, didn't realize it was a link.

Quoth McIntyre: "There is a substantial difference in trends in the “raw” data, which should have been reported."

Raw data usually has errors in it. That's why you don't use it to say anything definitive, because if you use uncorrected, unadjusted, un-QA/QC-ed data, hardly anything you say about it is scientifically defensible. So Peterson, who has been working with this data for decades, is unlikely to do something so unscientific.

While some of what McIntyre has done has merit, here I think he's pontificating beyond his realm.

65 posted on 04/24/2008 2:55:32 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"Readers should note that Peterson does not carry out TOB adjustments based on documented changes in observation time (which USHCN users might assume). Instead Peterson has used a procedure attributed to DeGaetano BAMS 2000, which purports to estimate observation time based on the properties of the data itself. The DeGaetano procedure, as with so many of these recipes, is not a statistical procedure known to statistical civilization off the island. You can’t go to a statistics textbook and learn its properties. There is no systematic presentation of DeGaetano-adjusted TOBS series against USHCN adjusted series."

I really don't know how any fair reading here eleicits the response you gave. Peterson used this data to assert that there is no UHI. You assert that he is entitled to that claim based on the data that contradicts his assertion after he massages it with a non-statistical procedure. Not inspiring confidence in either assertion Cog.

66 posted on 04/24/2008 3:35:16 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (El Nino is climate, La Nina is weather.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Peterson used this data to assert that there is no UHI.

The NCDC GHCN data includes a UHI correction. So how could Peterson assert there is no UHI?

67 posted on 04/24/2008 9:26:27 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson