The current cycle of the sun is taking a long time to start, triggering different explanations, writes Mark Lawson in an article entitled: 'Scientists disagree over lack of sunspots,' published in the Australian Financial Review (subscription required).
Excerpt: Despite being dismissed by a number of scientists as of little consequence to the present discussion of climate change, the issue of the sun's activity - or apparent lack of it - has been the subject of considerable debate in recent months. Scientists who concern themselves with the fledgling subject of space weather (changes in the sun's emissions) have been wondering where all the sunspots have gone, when they might come back and what effect this will have on climate.....
Another scientist who says he has identified a link between the sun's activity and climate - in particular between rainfall in Australia and sunspots - is Robert Baker, an associate professor at the University of New England's School of Human and Environmental Studies. Baker tells the AFR he has identified a strong correlation between sunspots, the sun's magnetic activity and the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). He says variations in the earth's magnetic field account for about half of the variation in the SOI, and that changes in sunspot activity as an indicator of magnetic activity can be correlated with rainfall patterns in south-east Australia . The Bureau of Meteorology has rejected Baker's reasoning and a paper by him was not accepted by the Australian Meterological Magazine. But Baker says his analysis has been accepted by the peer-reviewed journal Solar Terrestrial Physics for publication in December.
"Graeme; I am interested in how they project out to cycle 25 and 26. I have found papers by solar physicists which explain the prediction for the coming cycle 24 based on the relative strength of the polar to the toroidal magnetic fields. Statistically I understand how past solar cycles can be related to climate. I agree the end of 23 does not seem to be here yet and the sunspot number for july was at a record low so we have been 3 years in the single or low double digit numbers with no sign of recovery I agree it does not look good."
They cannot predict cycle 26 as far as I know. I said "during cycle 26" for entirely other reasons. Air temperature correlates with the prior cycle even better than with the current one for very good reasons.
Don't ask me for the Sami Solanki link that proves this because all the good stuff seems to go AWOL on the net.
As to cycle 25 it appears that a consensus has developed due to a surface conveyer on the sun. This surface conveyer has a big leadtime and so it wasn't 25 that had the doubt factor about it. But the predictions of 24 can sound like omens. They can sound like omens much to the delight of science-frauds and failed analysts like Quiggin., who calls all people who look for patterns "cycle-cranks"
Thats where the disparity is here. With 24 they had to go on prior patterns and rules of thumb. The whole thing is done on rules of thumb at the moment but this is a valid thing.
But the reason that they are so sure of the disaster of cycle 25 is that they bore witness to the surface conveyer. Whereas their speculations of cycle 24 were far more indirect.
I say that the 2030's will be disastrously cold because thats the only decade I'd wager my entire superannuation on.
But being less of a pussy about it, and waging a good bet, I would suggest to you that the cooling will start pretty much right away. With only one or two up years all the way down to the 2030's.
Its a weakass thing to say that the cooling WILL!!!! start pretty much right away. Because as we all know its already started.
You might get some mild uptick after Forbush events, after the next solar maximum, or during the period after the gulf stream has been in a strong phase. But I would see a sort of situation of 8 years of cooling against 3 years of feeble warming and a sort of continual oscillation down clear through the 2030's.
"So, are you making a prediction of an ice age?"
A "LITTLE" ICE AGE YES.
Thats what the science says. There is simply no getting around that. But so far I do believe that we ought to be able to avoid the full-blown version if at first we can defeat socialism in science.
Each new little ice age has a more than 50% chance of being more severe than the last. Thats just a fact.
But I surmise that the glacial period only gets locked in when the ice interferes witht the ocean currents. So we can avoid this side of it hopefully but only so long as we are a free and viable civilisation. You leave it up to nature and nature will cock it up every time.
But yes we are on the cusp of a so-called "little ice age".
No question about that at all.
Things change if you only go on the scientific evidence. It changes everything. The prattling of puny humans becomes meaningless. The leftists have their mantras and its the commie version of wishing upon a star.
THE LEFTISTS THINK IN THEIR HEARTS THAT IF A MILLION OF THEM CAN LIE A MILLION TIMES IT WILL ALTER REALITY.
But it won't.
So yes if we are only going on scientific evidence then we have a "little-ice-age" on our hands.
The decade I can be absolutely sure of is the 2030's. But I speculate that the cooling will move apace pretty much from here on in.
"Leftwingers never pay up on bets."
They're called welchers here; no credit is extended to them.
"But you won't ever have two weak cycles in a row and not get dramatic cooling. 23 was weak by 20th century standards. If 24 is weak the cooling trend just started will continue and it will set us up for a truly catastrophic plunge during the time period of solar cycles 25 and 26.
Leftwingers never pay up on bets. But if you could legally lock it in, you could bet your last dollar on the fact that the 2030's will be substantially colder than the 90's. This won't be a line-ball call and even Goddard won't be able to finesse the data away.
This will be a serious disaster. "
So, are you making a prediction of an ice age?
Australia's IPS just pushed their cycle 24 forecast 6 months into the future.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/australian-space-weather-agency-pushes-solar-cycle-24-up-6-months/
Louis Hissink,
please do not insult Luke by implying that he would take money for knowingly promoting false science.
True Believers RARELY stoop to taking money for propagandising others, at least publicly!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
dhogaza,
yes, reading papers carefully is always the right thing to do. I have noticed in several climate papers that there seems to be a de rigeur statement about AGW even when the paper would seem to undercut the AGW science.
E&E is garbage, but there are some credible journals in there.
However, when James Annan is listed as a "skeptic", you begin to realize that you'd better read each paper on the list before you believe that the research is actually questioning the consensus position.
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
- J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
Graeme; I am interested in how they project out to cycle 25 and 26. I have found papers by solar physicists which explain the prediction for the coming cycle 24 based on the relative strength of the polar to the toroidal magnetic fields. Statistically I understand how past solar cycles can be related to climate. I agree the end of 23 does not seem to be here yet and the sunspot number for july was at a record low so we have been 3 years in the single or low double digit numbers with no sign of recovery I agree it does not look good.
Generally speaking the longer a solar cycle takes to come to peak activity the weaker its going to be. This is cycle 24 and the solar people were divided on how strong it would be. But they appear to have been united on the idea that solar cycle 25 will be incredibly weak.
Looking at the historical data you will see that you can get away with one weak solar cycle and you won't necessarily have much of a change in the air temperature. This is because the air temperature is the tail and the dog is accumulated energy in the oceans.
But you won't ever have two weak cycles in a row and not get dramatic cooling. 23 was weak by 20th century standards. If 24 is weak the cooling trend just started will continue and it will set us up for a truly catastrophic plunge during the time period of solar cycles 25 and 26.
Leftwingers never pay up on bets. But if you could legally lock it in, you could bet your last dollar on the fact that the 2030's will be substantially colder than the 90's. This won't be a line-ball call and even Goddard won't be able to finesse the data away.
This will be a serious disaster.
David - Isn't Robert Baker mentioned in the article 'local?' Bob Carter springs to mind who looks at climate on geological timescales, and Prof Aynsley Kellow who was a referee for Chapter 19 in the [IPCC] Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment,' but doesn't agree with its conclusions despite being a signatory. That's 3 without really trying.