30 2 mins 11 yrs

Real scientists speak, and what they say is both delicious and portentious. Via WUWT, it looks as if we’re in for a solar minimum and, as the press release states, that could rather affect the climate. There’s talk of a second Maunder Minimum in the offing which really would put a nip in the air.

It’s delicious not just because the skiing would great but also because the AGW cultists might shut up for once. They might, though I doubt it, astonished though they would be to find that the sun does have something of an effect on the climate afterall. Despite Delingpole’s understandable excitement the warmists are as faithful as any zealot. My money would be on yet new ways to rob us unless we burn Parliament to keep warm.

Standing around the blackened carcass of Parliament may just be where some of us end up since, if it comes to pass, the days of cold will be arriving with the blackouts that will be due wholly to government negligence, ineptitude and adoption of Gaia worship as the state faith.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

30 thoughts on “THE SUNSPOTS FADE

  1. There is a lot of talk about a new Maunder Minimum. If this is what the future holds then we can forget global warming for the forseeable future. Rather we will need to ask ourselves where is the power needed to keep the lights on and the central heating going to come from. The requirement that people are taxed on their carbon usage will no longer apply and our ability to produce electricity, a lot of electricity will become very obvious. Unfortunately we do not have the capacity to fill this requirement. For example, during the last very cold spell, only a winter away, we were able to buy excess energy being produced from France’s nuclear industry. Now, following the Japanese Tsunami and their nuclear difficulties, Germany has closed some nuclear installations and aims to close down more. Therefore, if next winter is again very cold, Germany will also be short of energy and they will probably be looking to supplement their supplies by buying French as well – but will France have enough?

    I cannot understand why our politicians be they Conservative, Liberal Democrats or Labour seem unable to grasp tha the Sun determines our climate in a way that CO2 never can and that we are a Carbon planet. Until they do and do something about it it is far more probable that we will freeze rather than melt.

  2. There are several shaky points above.

    First of all, sunspot activity has been very low for several years now; while the climate continued to warm.

    Second – decreasing sunspots does not cause global cooling, and even the related magnetic phenomena that do heat things up a bit (sunspots are themselves cooler than other solar areas) have little or no demonstrable effect on terrestrial climate.

    The effect on the earth is probably no more and no less than that of the last Maunder Minimum on European politics: it almost exactly coincided with the reign of Louis XIV – also known as the Sun King!

  3. Peter: most politicians dont care if the earth is warming or cooling. they care about power. the AGW cult – and its flip-side, the global cooling fad of the 70’s – is one and the same – forecasting doom and gloom is a good excuse to turn decisions and regulatory power, and taxation power, over to the govt.

  4. I reject that.

    The AGW guys may be wrong, to varying degrees, but there is no reason to conclude that they’re not sincere.

  5. calling those who disagree with AGW “scientific” conclusions “deniers” sort of gives away the game, dont you think?

  6. I haven’t liked their high handed attitude for a very long time.

    They still could be sincere, but they may be bad scientists and are certainly piss poor at the arts of persuasion.

  7. Phantom – Wrong to varying degrees? Nice pun if intended. I do think the worst thing to happen to GW is the way it was championed by Al Gore (The Fog of Gore) who gave the GW opposition their icon to serve to dismiss the theory (since they can’t relly attack it from a scientific standpoint).

  8. It wasn’t manufactured, but I realized the beauty of it before I sent it out!

    Gore is a smart guy ( as I’ve mentioned before I did read one of his books ) but he has been just such an awful spokesman since

    a) he never debated the issue with any opponent – which made half the country’s antennae come up. He demolished Ross Perot in debate, but wouldn’t share the stage with anyone who wasn’t ” safe ” on this issue.

    b) his champagne and private jet lifestyle is at odds with what he claims to believe in.

  9. Noel,

    I might of got a few things wrong but the planet has not been warming for the past few years. It has either flat lined or cooled.

    The expected effects of low or no sun spot activity are global cooling, the sun being at its most active when sun spots are common.

    Three interesting papers are described on WUWT and in Delinpole’s blog. I would recommend that you read them.

    Patty, I take your point about politicians. Sadly you are probably right. Power is a drug.

  10. As usual Watts gets carried away and ignores anything that doesn’t suit his cause:

    “A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations. A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century’s end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.”

    Link here

  11. I know that you denialists just love reading about climate science. So here is a little refresher for your open minds 🙂 to grapple with:

    “The greenhouse effect is fundamental science: It would be easy to form the opinion that everything we know about climate change is based upon the observed rise in global temperatures and observed increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. In other words, one could have the mistaken impression that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single correlation study. In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a human role in climate change. Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is even less informed by 20th century changes in global mean temperature.

    For example, our understanding of the greenhouse effect – the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy and chemistry. Much of this science is textbook material that is at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record.

    For example, it is a scientific fact that Venus, the planet most similar to Earth in our solar system, experiences surface temperatures of nearly 500 degrees Celsius due to its atmosphere being heavily laden with greenhouse gases.”

    Link here

  12. It was going so well until the IPCC was cited.

    Criminal scams do not make for sound science.

  13. Science is science. You guys attack AGW simply because its consequences (government action and taxes) clash with your political agenda. I mean, it’s not like you would claim that evolution is a scam?

    Oh wait…

  14. You’re so right, Peter. I mean, what other possible reason could there be for Venus having a far hotter surface temperature than Earth? I can’t think of one.
    Hey, I bet they’ll discover that there is an even greater density of greenhouse gases on Mercury, and almost none at all on Pluto, thus explaining the differences in temperature. Science is a wonderful thing.

  15. Al Gore’s college grades include a “D” in natural science.

    A “D” — a gentleman’s fail!!!

    Gore’s AGW science is a fraud.

  16. In fairness to Al, he was probably smoking reefer when he out to have been studying

    He’s no dummy

  17. VHS.

    Ever notice how, the closer you get to a gas heater, the warmer you feel? Well, look, pass me a piece of chalk, someone. OK. Here’s the sun. Here’s Venus. Here’s the Earth. Notice how the sun is quite hot. Notice how Venus is closer to the sun than we are. Think about what happens when you move closer to that gas heater again. Take your time, work it out.

  18. Gore is not a scientist, but he is a very convenient scapegoat for the anti-science Right, ably represented by Patty and others of this parish.

  19. Peter –

    I mean, it’s not like you would claim that evolution is a scam?

    I said the IPCC is a criminal scam.

    If the state looted me at the point of a gun to deal with the consequences of evolution that would be criminal also.

  20. No, I haven’t, Peter. I’m not claiming to have done any such thing. I have only stated the blindingly obvious reason why surface temps on Venus are obviously much higher than ours.
    You said “Venus […] experiences surface temperatures of nearly 500 degrees Celsius [higher] due to its atmosphere being heavily laden with greenhouse gases”, as if that was taken to be the primary reason. This is patently not so. That is all I have pointed out.

  21. Pete

    Thanks for missing the point, which is (duh!) that there is a considerable overlap between AGW deniers and Creationists. But maybe you have Creationist leanings anyway?

  22. Tom

    Thanks for avoiding the issue, yet again. You seem to be claiming that the atmosphere on Venus has nothing to do with the surface temperature, which is entirely dictated by the planet’s distance from the sun. Am I right?

  23. Peter –

    I’m not sure there is a “considerable” overlap between AGW heretics and creationists. Whatever overlap exists, it’s more than matched by the overlap between AGW believers and regulatory statists.

    And no, I’m not a creationist.

  24. And no, I’m not a creationist.

    Glad to hear that!

    I take your point about the other overlap, but the science just won’t go away. I would be the first to cheer if AGW was comprehensively demolished by new evidence, but it ain’t gonna happen and the sooner we accept that the better.

Comments are closed.