Article

2014-06-15 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Hupereth Cherese5811 2014-06-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 Time to reprise this warning?: Another Ice Age?

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-06-15 00:46|| 2014-06-15 00:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually, the link is to a paper published in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267284.

The author claims to have recently reproduced these results in a new paper discussed here.

The latest study lacks the scientific rigor that I look for; missing data and lacking details of methods used to support reproducing the results.

There is considerable natural variation in the climate that is not well understood. The solar sunspot cycles do vary. There was a grand solar maximum (i.e. several large solar sunspot cycles strung back to back) at the end of the 20th century that has scientist wondering. But the mechanism for how that translates into earth temperature changes is not well understood. We currently have weak solar sunspot cycles and time will tell if they result in global cooling.

My own gut tells me that it has to do with the UV portion of the solar spectrum because that does vary significantly with the solar sunspot cycle but the energy changes in the total solar irradiance due to UV variability do not appear to be enough, on their own, to account for the measured temperature changes.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 01:15|| 2014-06-15 01:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Here is a look to the SOHO sunspot (current) page.

Here is the Solar Dynamic Observatory page. Pick the radio button 2nd from the right.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 01:26|| 2014-06-15 01:26|| Front Page Top

#4 The 'Sun' is a variable star. That means it's output varies, it is not a constant. We've only had about a hundred years of study of the variations and less of particular forms of output (x,gamma rays etc). Of course, this is all ignored by the MMGW crowd (if they use the term carbon - its a MMGW piece of propaganda, not to be confused with natural climate change).

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-06-15 09:05|| 2014-06-15 09:05|| Front Page Top

#5 It is estimated the sun has used up about half of its hydrogen fuel in the last 4.6 billion years, since its birth. It still has enough hydrogen to last about another 5 billion years At some point there will be global cooling. The global warming, climate change hucksters will probably be hanging on to their religion for nearly that long even though the planet will be cooling. There seems to be no shortage of these morons.

Posted by JohnQC 2014-06-15 09:52|| 2014-06-15 09:52|| Front Page Top

#6 It is estimated the sun has used up about half of its hydrogen fuel in the last 4.6 billion years, since its birth.

We are now on the down hill slope to doom. Buy fish hooks, penicillin, whiskey and head for your doomshack. You do have a doom shack? No? T0000000 late. You will die when the sun goes red and I will laugh and laugh.

Posted by Shipman 2014-06-15 12:08|| 2014-06-15 12:08|| Front Page Top

#7 the article posits a 7 year lag between low sunspot numbers and lower temps.

however in the recent 15 years weve been though some pretty decent ups and downs in sunspots without signif8icant ups and downs in world temps

so on that basis the empirical argument is less than airtight

the other part of this is that sunspots are cooler than the rest of the sun so when there are lots of sunspots, you'd think earth would be hotter but that's the opposite of the normalistic analysis

Posted by lord garth 2014-06-15 12:21|| 2014-06-15 12:21|| Front Page Top

#8 I have a shovel, and there are plenty of mine shafts here in az, Shipman. Your welcome to stop by after the world ends and drink the night away....

It is nice to see someone in the scientific community perform some actual science and study something.

Posted by 49 Pan 2014-06-15 12:41|| 2014-06-15 12:41|| Front Page Top

#9 The 'Sun' is a variable star.

I believe that to be true. The direct measurement of TSI started with the satellite era and the instruments were not very good. Hence all the tedious "adjustments" to compensate for different instruments. Ah, adjustments; the devils hands are never idle. We now have SDO so in a hundred years we should have enough data to be sure.

however in the recent 15 years we've been though some pretty decent ups and downs in sunspots without significant ups and downs in world temps.

Solar cycle 23 (1996 May to 2008 January) was a wimp. Regarding solar cycle 24 (current) 'None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle'.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 13:04|| 2014-06-15 13:04|| Front Page Top

#10 There's another cause of variability in solar intensity that probably affects temp on this planet.

http://cseligman.com/text/planets/orbiteffect.htm

In short, the earths rotation around the sun is an elipse and the earth also wobbles on its axis. We do not live in a static environment. To pick one variable, which just happends to be taxable (whadda coincidence), is bad science, plain old BS or just a con game.

My bet is on number 3.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2014-06-15 13:53|| 2014-06-15 13:53|| Front Page Top

#11 There's another cause of variability

The change in distance due to the keplering orbit of the earth around the sun repeats every year. By itself it wouldn't affect year over year comparisons, at least not on intervals << 100,000 years. The Milankovitch cycles are thought to be the cause of periodic ice ages but can't explain natural variations on the order of a century.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 14:04|| 2014-06-15 14:04|| Front Page Top

#12 No reason it can't be all three, #13 BR.

Posted by Barbara 2014-06-15 14:22|| 2014-06-15 14:22|| Front Page Top

#13 Oops - I meant #10 BR.

Posted by Barbara 2014-06-15 14:23|| 2014-06-15 14:23|| Front Page Top

#14 No reason it can't be all three

I agree that it will likely be a combination of factors. I am unaware of any theory that presents a combination of factors that comes close. The IPCC models have an absolutely abysmal track record of predicting the future (go back to old IPCC predictions and compare predicted to actual for this year).

Which is why the liberal propaganda about the 'science being settled' is so laughable. What scientist would ever be caught saying such a thing? Not a scientist but rather a propagandist.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 14:33|| 2014-06-15 14:33|| Front Page Top

#15 Climate "changes". That's the point of climate.
Humans adapt to changes. That's the success of humans.

Posted by European Conservative 2014-06-15 16:31|| 2014-06-15 16:31|| Front Page Top

#16 I can't recommend this site enough. You can also follow some of the links to sites like Dr Tim Ball's, Dr. Roy Spencer's, Bishop's Hill, Jo Nova, Global Warming Policy Foundation, SEPP, and a few dozen others. It's a constant, ongoing education in REAL climate science, not the cr$p certain other, unmentionable cretins spout.

Posted by Old Patriot 2014-06-15 16:46|| 2014-06-15 16:46|| Front Page Top

#17 What OP said.

My day isn't complete unless I've checked Watts Up With That at least once.

Posted by Barbara 2014-06-15 17:14|| 2014-06-15 17:14|| Front Page Top

#18 Agreed. Anthony Watts does an outstanding job.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 18:59|| 2014-06-15 18:59|| Front Page Top

#19 NASA had warned that a shockwave(s) from the most recent solar flares = CMES was possible to occur last Friday 06/13th.

I didn't sense any "shockwave(s)" this past Friday, but I did experience post-Midnite Earthquakes + sky phenoms + background distortions earlier in the week.

IMO NASA may had deliberat told a fib to the public, but the mighty Maha-Rushian questionne' remains "why"???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2014-06-15 19:42|| 2014-06-15 19:42|| Front Page Top

#20 JosephMendiola,
The earth's magnetic field (and Atmosphere) largely protect the surface of the earth from high energy solar particles generated by solar flares. Satellites are not so well protected. But any competent satellite designer uses circuits that can withstand such bombardment. Given enough warning (e.g. SOHO) satellite operators can put vulnerable satellites in safe mode to further protect them. International Space Station astronauts can retreat to more heavily protected parts such as the US built Destiny laboratory.

Posted by Squinty 2014-06-15 23:44|| 2014-06-15 23:44|| Front Page Top

23:44 Squinty
23:13 trailing wife
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:41 Frank G
22:36 trailing wife
22:36 Glimble Hatrack7059
22:34 trailing wife
22:24 Zenobia Floger6220
22:23 JosephMendiola
21:47 Zenobia Floger6220
21:26 Pappy
21:23 James
21:22 Pearl Borgia1889
20:42 DarthVader
20:35 trailing wife
20:17 OldSpook
20:13 49 Pan
20:13 OldSpook
20:02 trailing wife
19:57 Frank G
19:42 JosephMendiola
19:41 Airandee