More like this
‘Hibernating’ sun could spark Little Ice Age
Man-made global warming might be offset by cooling effect of disappearing sunspots
The sun's 11-year sunspot cycle could be heading for a dormant period similar to one which caused the so-called Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when markets were held on a frozen River Thames in London.
Three scientific studies offer evidence that sunspots are on the verge of disappearing. Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory (NSO), said yesterday: "This is highly unusual and unexpected, but the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."
The current solar cycle, named Cycle 24 by scientists, is entering its period of maximum activity, and will climax in 2013. The processes that lead to a period of maximum activity during the next 11-year oscillation, Cycle 25, should by now be evident. However, the Christian Science Monitor reports, a study of the sun's acoustic signals led by Hill has found no such evidence.
Another study, by Matt Penn and William Livingston of the NSO, has found that the sun's magnetic field strength has fallen over the past 13 years. If the trend continues, says Penn, there may be no sunspots during Cycle 25.
The third study was led by Richard Altrock, who heads the US Air Force's corona research program. They studied 40 years' worth of data and predicted that the Cycle 24 solar maximum due in 2013 may not happen at all.
Hill says that if the three studies are correct, the next solar maximum could be the last we will see for a few decades. Reduced sunspot activity raises the possibility of a second 'Maunder Minimum' - a period from 1645 to 1715 during which virtually no sunspots were observed. These decades were marked by extremely cold winters in Europe and North America and are known as the Little Ice Age.
Of course, as any statistician will tell you, correlation does not imply causation.
But it is impossible not to speculate how a possible cooling of the earth will be affected by man-made climate change. Tom Woods, associate director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, told the Arizona Daily Star he thinks any fall in temperatures caused by a dormant sun will be disguised by global warming.
Hill himself is hedging his bets, saying: "I have not seen enough evidence either way to say whether solar activity is responsible for climate effects or not... if the next solar cycle, Cycle 25, does not occur, we'll have a splendid opportunity to find out." ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
DhenBhoy, you're one scary piece of humanity. No one should be talking about burning anyone just because you don't agree with them. And I dont know where you and Kevin McGrane get your facts but an overwhelming majority scientific community agree that global warming is real. You'll get a few right-wing wing-nuts who don't want to believe reality for political reasons (we're actually headed towards an ice age), or maybe they're getting paid by the energy lobby? Huh Kevin McGrane?
We're on to you buddy. ;)
Love the comments
Kevin: Well thought out, concise and accurate argument ... AGW never want to discuss how the planet "warmed" significantly and recovered from the Ice Age since it is one of their "inconvenient" truths and even their own "reasearch data" (facts ???) have been shown to have been manipulated since the real data showed a decline ....
valis667 argument: Kevin is a disbeliever .. a denier ... burn him !!!
Valis667 is obviusly a climate change 'environmentalist' luddite. All Kevin posted was informed opinion that included facts that can be checked and independently verified which is more than what Valis667 managed to do. Frothing at the mouth and implying that the Koch Bros are paying people to publish anti AGW comments do nothing to promote your cause or enhance the debate. Shame on you.
I expect you would rather us all live like fawns in the forest in perfect harmony with the planet eating deadfall twigs but life aint like that and thank god it will never be. Just for the record there is no unanimous assent amongst climate change scientists and there is nothing unscientific about Kevin's arguments. Also Kevin didn't say that C02 didnt contribute to climate change, only that it is a bit player in the whole process. Even the most fanatical of luddites must understand that the sun is the engine of the solar system and that changes there affect us all in a big way.
Nice bit of rationalisation there Kevin. How much did the Koch Bros pay you for that bit of propaganda? There is unanimous assent amongst climate scientists that AGW is a fact. You can spout your petty, un-scientific arguments all you want, that doesn't change the facts.
This article doesn't suggest any physical mechanism whereby a 'fall in temperatures' might occur due to the lack of sunspots, though it hints that sunspots won't appear because the magnetic field is likely to fall too low. Indeed it is generally thought that sunspots can't be maintained with a field lower than 1500 gauss. Of course, this all proves too much because if there can be a 'fall in temperatures' when magnetic field in the sun drops to a low value, then we will have a rise in temperatures when the sun's magnetic field increases to a high value. This then gives the lie to the completely false idea that the sun isn't a major driver of climate since its energy output is so constant, because there are many other factors in the sun that influence climate, for example affecting the solar wind, which itself affects the amount of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere, which has an effect on cloud. A 1% change in cloud cover on the earth has the same effect on temperatures as a 100% increase in CO2, just to put that silly little bit player into perspective. Many of us have been saying for years that the steady increase in temperature over the last few centuries has been recovery from the Little Ice Age. And it's pretty obvious the the Little Ice Age was a slump in temperatures, and that from a much warmer (warmer than these days) Medieval Warm Period. There is very good correlation between factors related to the sun and terrestrial temperatures over centuries, and only the most trivial correlation between CO2 and terrestrial temperatures over 20 years (1980s and 1990s), which I repeat is nothing but trivial, and a mere artifact. If you study the Central England Temperature record you will find that the fastest rate of temperature increase in the last 350 years was at the beginning of the eighteenth century when the sun 'woke up' and sunspots reappeared. The sun is indeed the major driver of climate, over which we have not the slightest control, and CO2 is just a bit player which for all practical purposes can be ignored.