The Sun is shutting down , is another LIA coming ?

[Michael]

Well, preliminary results seem to indicate that 2009 is going to be quite a warm year, as it's starting to look like an El Nino is beginning to form:
Model Outlooks for El Niño and La Niña

It's not certain, of course, but it's beginning to seem likely.

I'd also like to point out that even if the solar irradiance were decreasing, as you seem to believe, we wouldn't feel the effects yet regardless: it takes about ten years for the Earth's temperature to catch up to changes in solar irradiance.

Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle - News Release
NASA - New Solar Cycle Prediction

It seems that the mainstream has done an about face recently about the expectations of the next solar cycle and they are now predicting it to be significantly weaker than previous cycles rather than predicting it to be significantly stronger as they had been predicting a few years ago.

For anyone following this thread, it should also be noted that the current sunspot in the southern hemisphere is definitely part of the next solar cycle and it comes from an active region that just got significantly more active in the past week or so.

 

[Chalnoth]

Scientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle - News Release
NASA - New Solar Cycle Prediction

It seems that the mainstream has done an about face recently about the expectations of the next solar cycle and they are now predicting it to be significantly weaker than previous cycles rather than predicting it to be significantly stronger as they had been predicting a few years ago.

For anyone following this thread, it should also be noted that the current sunspot in the southern hemisphere is definitely part of the next solar cycle and it comes from an active region that just got significantly more active in the past week or so.

As near as I've been able to discern, it has been and still is uncertain as to whether or not the next solar cycle will be stronger or weaker than previous. However, what is certain is that it will have very little impact on global climate. It would be nice, I suppose, if the Sun went into an inactive cycle, as that might potentially give us a tiny bit more breathing room to avoid hitting a climate tipping point towards catastrophic warming.

The scary thing is that nobody yet knows where the next tipping point in climate is. The basic idea is that the Earth appears to have a large number of stable points in terms of its climate. If the climate is perturbed too much out of one of those stable points, then it rapidly changes to a different one. We really want to avoid that happening at all costs, but the problem is we don't yet know how far we have to warm the Earth before we hit such a tipping point. A bit of reprieve from the Sun would be nice, as no matter where the tipping point is it will give us more of a chance of avoiding it. But the magnitude of the effect is too small to actual start a cooling trend, when compared against the increasing impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

 

[nikkipompom]

scary

 

[Chalnoth]

scary

Well, to an extent. It is somewhat unlikely that there will be very dramatic changes to the Earth's climate within our own lifetimes. If we do not avoid the worst, then it will likely be very difficult on global economies, which especially means lots of human suffering, particularly in poor areas. But the most catastrophic changes won't occur any time soon.

That changes the issue, to me, from an issue of concern over our livelihood to an issue of morality: I would consider it profoundly immoral to leave my great-great-grandchildren an Earth that was nearly uninhabitable by people (other organisms will get along fine without us). Or, at least, to not do everything we possibly can to avert such a disaster.

 

[plindboe]

Well, to an extent. It is somewhat unlikely that there will be very dramatic changes to the Earth's climate within our own lifetimes. If we do not avoid the worst, then it will likely be very difficult on global economies, which especially means lots of human suffering, particularly in poor areas. But the most catastrophic changes won't occur any time soon.

That changes the issue, to me, from an issue of concern over our livelihood to an issue of morality: I would consider it profoundly immoral to leave my great-great-grandchildren an Earth that was nearly uninhabitable by people (other organisms will get along fine without us). Or, at least, to not do everything we possibly can to avert such a disaster.

I think that the short term changes might be catastrophic enough to not simply be a moral issue. As an example, my girlfriend is looking for property in the London area and it's noteworthy that many houses have decreased dramatically in value due to increased flooding risks. No doubt there's alot of loss and pain behind those dropping prices, some people affected have undoubtedly used the word "catastrophic" already. This is often how these things play out in everyday life, quite unlike films like "The day after tomorrow".

Peter

 

[Greatcloud]

I would think closeness, as in proximinity to areas of climate change, is more important then global climate change. I am speaking of smog.

Chalnoth; I am sorry for the cheap argument (not cheap shots lol). The area I live in, indeed the whole Oregon coast has expieranced cooling and clouds. Which may or may not be because of CRT ( I know lies ) ; dating from 2008 early til now ( I know IMO ). There does that put me more on an even keel.

As far as there being sunspots its one pimple not a teenagers acned red inflamed cheek.

":^)

 

[Chalnoth]

I would think closeness, as in proximinity to areas of climate change, is more important then global climate change. I am speaking of smog.

This doesn't even make sense. Pollution is a separate issue from global climate change.

Chalnoth; I am sorry for the cheap argument (not cheap shots lol). The area I live in, indeed the whole Oregon coast has expieranced cooling and clouds. Which may or may not be because of CRT ( I know lies ) ; dating from 2008 early til now ( I know IMO ). There does that put me more on an even keel.

I've pointed out before how absolutely silly it is to make statements about long-term change based upon short-term analysis of a noisy data set. Might as well do it again: because temperatures are highly variable from year to year, it is exceedingly easy to discover any trend you want just by cherry-picking a short interval of time. To really produce a reasonable analysis, you have to pay close attention to the underlying statistics. Something you clearly aren't even giving lip service to.

As far as there being sunspots its one pimple not a teenagers acned red inflamed cheek.

You do realize that it takes time for the sunspot cycle to get underway, right?

 

[Chalnoth]

I think that the short term changes might be catastrophic enough to not simply be a moral issue. As an example, my girlfriend is looking for property in the London area and it's noteworthy that many houses have decreased dramatically in value due to increased flooding risks. No doubt there's alot of loss and pain behind those dropping prices, some people affected have undoubtedly used the word "catastrophic" already. This is often how these things play out in everyday life, quite unlike films like "The day after tomorrow".

Peter

Well, I suppose it depends upon what you mean by the word. Sure, people in many areas will experience more severe natural disasters. The main issue, in my mind, is that it is difficult to directly link singular events to global warming. Would that big brush fire in Australia have happened were it not for global warming? There is no way to know. What we do know, however, is that these events will become much more common as global warming progresses. There's also increased flooding risk in many areas, as well as droughts in others.

All of these things will make things hard on people the world over, and they can certainly be devastating on an individual level. But given that these sorts of things happen anyway, and will just happen with greater frequency as global warming progresses, I wouldn't call the difference global warming makes "catastrophic". But that's a personal judgment call.

The really nasty stuff won't happen for hundreds or thousands of years, and I would consider it beyond irresponsible to not do everything we can do today to prevent catastrophic climate change for our descendants.

 

[Greatcloud]

This doesn't even make sense. Pollution is a separate issue from global climate change.

Sorry Chalnoth this was for Plindboe, I will restate it, for you. I believe pollution to be closely related to AGW. I'm not talking about CO2T. When tempertures increase (2 degrees F , what we have expirenced in GW) I believe this slight increase is directly caused by moniters (mostly in city limits) Showing trapped heat from growing pollution. Do you understand my assurtion now ?


I've pointed out before how absolutely silly it is to make statements about long-term change based upon short-term analysis of a noisy data set. Might as well do it again: because temperatures are highly variable from year to year, it is exceedingly easy to discover any trend you want just by cherry-picking a short interval of time. To really produce a reasonable analysis, you have to pay close attention to the underlying statistics. Something you clearly aren't even giving lip service to.

I am talking about the last 10 years. My understanding is fine friend.


You do realize that it takes time for the sunspot cycle to get underway, right?

Of course but as of now we have'nt seen it come to more then mere words.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry Chalnoth this was for Plindboe, I will restate it, for you. I believe pollution to be closely related to AGW. I'm not talking about CO2T. When tempertures increase (2 degrees F , what we have expirenced in GW) I believe this slight increase is directly caused by moniters (mostly in city limits) Showing trapped heat from growing pollution. Do you understand my assurtion now ?

Oh, that old canard?
Surface temperature records are unreliable

The short:
It has nothing to do with pollution. The claim is that the urban heat-island effect is large. It is an effect, but it's corrected for. And regardless, satellite data, which has no reliance whatsoever upon this effect, agrees with the surface temperature record.

I am talking about the last 10 years. My understanding is fine friend.

No, it's not, because you're still measuring from a particularly warm year and making silly conclusions from it.

Of course but as of now we have'nt seen it come to more then mere words.

I don't understand. You somehow think that things progressing pretty much precisely as the latest predictions somehow invalidates those predictions?

 

[Greatcloud]

Those sunspots are not going to appear as predicted, you just watch. Your expecting normal activity for the sun, what we have is not normal. We are still in a period of nil to 3 + - sunspots. We have to wait on this still, facts and scientific argument are not the only thing we have to depend on for the lack of sunspots buddy. We have to wait a year or so.

Its gonna hit you like a bolt out of the blue. The LIA is comming.


God bless us everyone

 

[Chalnoth]

Those sunspots are not going to appear as predicted, you just watch. Your expecting normal activity for the sun, what we have is not normal. We are still in a period of nil to 3 + - sunspots. We have to wait on this still, facts and scientific argument are not the only thing we have to depend on for the lack of sunspots buddy. We have to wait a year or so.

Its gonna hit you like a bolt out of the blue. The LIA is comming.[/SIZE]

The number of sunspots, according to the most recent predictions, indicate that we expect the number to increase slowly over the next few months, and reach a peak around 2013-2014. I think it's still unclear whether it will be a strong sunspot season or a weak one. But the latest prediction from NASA sides on being somewhat weaker than the last. The prediction for the maximum is 85 +/- 25 per month.

I do find it continually amusing, though, how you refuse to pay attention to the evidence that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that even if you were correct about the Sun "shutting down" (that is, cessation of sunspots), it would not produce global cooling. The magnitude of the effect is too small.

 

[Greatcloud]

The lack of sunspots is only one indicater of a LIA or Dalton minimum. I believe and I don't have to tell you, that; we still know very little about the sun. I am firmly in the GC camp at this point and I believe you will see I am right. 2008 was a fortelling of things to come my friend. We will know more this winter, for instance I predict thicker ice covering the N pole that will last longer.

 

[Chalnoth]

The lack of sunspots is only one indicater of a LIA or Dalton minimum. I believe and I don't have to tell you, that; we still know very little about the sun. I am firmly in the GC camp at this point and I believe you will see I am right. 2008 was a fortelling of things to come my friend. We will know more this winter, for instance I predict thicker ice covering the N pole that will last longer.

I do wonder how you will attempt to explain this when it so happens that you're wrong.

Never mind that even if you were correct about the sun, the effects would not be felt yet.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The lack of sunspots is only one indicater of a LIA or Dalton minimum. I believe and I don't have to tell you, that; we still know very little about the sun. I am firmly in the GC camp at this point and I believe you will see I am right. 2008 was a fortelling of things to come my friend. We will know more this winter, for instance I predict thicker ice covering the N pole that will last longer.

Arctic thick ice disappearing at dramatic pace, NASA says

"The near-zero replenishment of the multi-year ice cover, combined with unusual exports of ice out of the Arctic after the summers of 2005 and 2007, have both played significant roles in the loss of Arctic sea ice volume over the ICESat record," said Kwok.

 

[Greatcloud]

Temperate I said this Winter don't you know the N cap melts completely almost every year ? Watch out for this coming Winters ice. I am getting excited about the ice it may signal and end to GW.

 

[Chalnoth]

Temperate I said this Winter don't you know the N cap melts completely almost every year ? Watch out for this coming Winters ice. I am getting excited about the ice it may signal and end to GW.

Interesting how you can get excited about this with no supporting evidence whatsoever. There is no conceivable way for the ice to recover any time soon.

 

[Greatcloud]

Scientists fear that as more sea ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. This is a lie. There is more ice now then a year ago at the N pole and the S pole is still gaining ice and getting cooler too then last year.

 

[Chalnoth]

Scientists fear that as more sea ice is lost, the darker, open ocean will absorb more heat and raise local temperatures even further. This is a lie. There is more ice now then a year ago at the N pole and the S pole is still gaining ice and getting cooler too then last year.

1. It's winter in the South Pole. Of course it's gaining ice.
2. The ice at the north pole is about the same this year as last. The overall, long-term trend still remains down. The last couple of years of variation are well within the typical variation.

 

[Greatcloud]

1. It's winter in the South Pole. Of course it's gaining ice.
2. The ice at the north pole is about the same this year as last. The overall, long-term trend still remains down. The last couple of years of variation are well within the typical variation.

Sorry its been more then a year or a winter that the S pole has been gaining ice.

From 2007 to 2008 the increase of ice was signiicant in the N polor region. Another lie is about the polar bears BTW they are thriving all over the place.