Global Cooling?

[ralph124c]

Maybe Prof. Abdumusatov has been vindicated:http://ibdeditorial.co

m/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

If solar activity accounts for most of the global warming we’ve seen, then should be re-assess our efforts to reduce fossil fuel use?

[Giles]

Corrected link:

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

(I have no comment on whether the Sun is getting cooler, or whether we should worry about it)

[ArizonaTeach]

Dammit, when will we learn to control our solar energy usage and conserve the sun’s precious rays?

I blame Bush.

[Squink]

Recent thread:
Is Prof. Abdusamatov All Wet?

[scr4]

@Giles

(I have no comment on whether the Sun is getting cooler, or whether we should worry about it)

So what’s the debate?

Anyway there’s nothing unusual about the recent behavior of the sun. Cycle 24 has already started. There are conflicting predictions about whether Cycle 24 will be above or below average; there are different prediction methods that usually work well, but is giving conflicting predictions this time. Still, that’s not particularly strange - most of those methods are empirical anyway, and some are based on only a few cycles of observation.

And I’m not sure what this fewllow Tapping is proposing in terms of new observations. There are many solar observatories in the works, and more proposed all the time, so I’d guess whoever wrote the article found his name is on one of those proposals and attempted to make a connection.

[Giles]

@scr4

So what’s the debate?

I didn’t submit the OP, I just corrected the link in it.

[scr4]

@Giles

I didn’t submit the OP, I just corrected the link in it.

Sorry, never mind - for some reason I’d quoted the OP instead of yours.

[ITR_champion]

@ralph124c

If solar activity accounts for most of the global warming we’ve seen, then should be re-assess our efforts to reduce fossil fuel use?

Yes. But since solar activity does not account for most of the global warming we’ve seen, who cares?

[Frostillicus]

“Since the dawn of time, man has yearned to block out the sun.”

[XT]

@ITR champion

Yes. But since solar activity does not account for most of the global warming we’ve seen, who cares?

I have no comment on the OP as I have no idea…but the sun accounts for ALL of the global warming. Without it the Earth would be a big block of ice. Obviously fluctuation in the sun have a profound effect on our global temperature.

-XT

[scr4]

@xtisme

I have no comment on the OP as I have no idea…but the sun accounts for ALL of the global warming. Without it the Earth would be a big block of ice. Obviously fluctuation in the sun have a profound effect on our global temperature.

True. But it’s equally obvious that other factors affect how much of the sun’s energy is absorbed and/or re-radiated. If you paint the planet black, it’ll get warmer. If you remove the atmosphere it’ll get colder. If you cover it with a thick CO2 atmosphere it’ll get warmer.

So if we see a temperature change, we have to look at what factors have changed, which could explain the temperature change.

[XT]

@scr4

True. But it’s equally obvious that other factors affect how much of the sun’s energy is absorbed and/or re-radiated. If you paint the planet black, it’ll get warmer. If you remove the atmosphere it’ll get colder. If you cover it with a thick CO2 atmosphere it’ll get warmer.

I’m…not sure I agree with that. It’s to simplistic. If you change just one factor (paint the planet black for instance) other factors may or may not prevent the planet from getting warmer (or cooler if the planet was all white). If not, then when the planet WAS all white (because it was covered in ice) then it would have never changed and we would still be a frozen ball of ice. If you thicken the CO2 then the planet MIGHT get warmer, but my understanding is that other factors will be involved as well (absorbing CO2 at a higher rate for instance).

@scr4

So if we see a temperature change, we have to look at what factors have changed, which could explain the temperature change.

Again, my understanding is that there are multiple factors involved in temperature change. C02 is just one of them. But certainly the suns output is also a major factor. IF the sun is indeed going through a cooling phase then it will be another factor in global temperature.

Again, I have no idea about the OP…maybe jshore or one of those other guys knowledgeable on this subject will wander in.

-XT

[scr4]

@xtisme

Again, my understanding is that there are multiple factors involved in temperature change. C02 is just one of them. But certainly the suns output is also a major factor.

That was my point as well, that there are multiple factors involved. The sun’s output is of course a major factor, but so are albedo, atmospheric composition and density, etc.

IF the sun is indeed going through a cooling phase then it will be another factor in global temperature.

True. But there is no evidence that the sun is going through a cooling phase, or even starting to. At least I haven’t seen any. And unless the OP (or someone else) can provide some evidence, I don’t really see any point to this thread.

And I might add, there is no increase in sun’s output that correspond to the global warming over the past century either.

[ralph124c]

@scr4

That was my point as well, that there are multiple factors involved. The sun’s output is of course a major factor, but so are albedo, atmospheric composition and density, etc.
True. But there is no evidence that the sun is going through a cooling phase, or even starting to. At least I haven’t seen any. And unless the OP (or someone else) can provide some evidence, I don’t really see any point to this thread.

And I might add, there is no increase in sun’s output that correspond to the global warming over the past century either.

I think the main point is the (observed) lack of sunspot activity. This phenomenon (“Maunder Cycle”) has been shown to correlate with temperature changes in the past.
So if it gets really cold in 2012, we will have some verification of this.

[scr4]

@ralph124c

I think the main point is the (observed) lack of sunspot activity. This phenomenon (“Maunder Cycle”)…

Of course there’s low sunspot activity - we’re at a solar minimum. It’s just the 11-year solar cycle, not the “Maunder Cycle”. If the solar minimum had continued for another year or two without any sign of a new cycle, maybe that would have been a concern. But as you’ll see in my link above, the next cycle has already started. Everything is as expected.

I don’t think there is such a thing as a “Maunder Cycle” anyway. There was a Maunder Minimum, but I don’t think there is any evidence that it is cyclical.

[Sam_Stone]

My understanding of the article is that it doesn’t dispute that the next solar cycle has started, but that the increase in magnetic field usually associated with the start of a new cycle hasn’t happened - or is smaller than usual.

That said, I tried googling this, and the only articles I can find are the original one at Investor’s Business Daily, and various right-wing blogs commenting on it and left-wing blogs dissing it. No other primary source materials or articles in actual scientific journals were found. That makes me rather skeptical.

I then found this link which quotes Dr. Tapping saying:

Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

So, my understanding of the story is this: A respected scientist who observes the sun mentioned to a reporter that cycle 24 started late, and after it started the increase in magnetic flux so far is a bit lower than usual. The reporter probably asked what that means, and Tapping said, “Well, in the past, periods of decreased activity have correlated to global cooling. However, there’s no reason to suspect that that’s going to be the case this time, and it’s very early in the cycle to make any predictions.”

Said reporter then left off the caveats, added a heaping mound of hyperbole, and wrote a breathless article about how we might all be freezing soon. Global warming skeptics picked up the article and ran with it. The scientist who was originally misquoted is probably appalled that his off-the-cuff conversation is being turned into ammunition against global warming theories.

This is much ado about nothing. If a year from now the cycle is still looking weak, we might have something substantive to debate.

[NurseCarmen]

Global warming skeptics again burned by their refusal to read peer reviewed journals. When will they learn?

[What_Exit]

Thank you **Sam Stone ** for the excellent fact checking.

[wevets]

Thanks Sam Stone I would have posted about the deltoid blog quote but you beat me to it!

[jshore]

@ralph124c

Maybe Prof. Abdumusatov has been vindicated:http://ibdeditorial.co

m/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Hmmm…That editorial starts out with these lines:

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t bother to note what has happened since 1991…namely that one of the co-authors on that paper updated the work and found that the correlation broke down dramatically since about 1980 in exactly the way one would expect if greenhouse gases were overwhelming these solar cycle effects.

Others, by the way, have argued that various questionable data manipulations exaggerated the correlation to begin with. (See here for a more detailed exposition.)