For all you AGW worry-warts and those who believe the Sun has little effect on the Earth, you only have a few more years to realize how wrong you have been to have made CO2, your god of disasters, if the Sun spits out it's fury, in this cycle.

A large "natural" electromagnetic mega-storm may, within minutes, cause enough damage to severely alter electrical grids, the internet, bank machines, orbiting satellites, airplane guidance systems, cellphone and data communication systems and fry automobile computers, not to mention the doses of elevated UV and gamma rays bombarding the Earth.

It could be "lights out" for all offices and industries for months or years. No man-made excuses to raise taxes. Just the plain old Sun, doing a natural re-cycling.

When you start to see beautiful northern lights in Texas or Southern France, you'll know it's here.

Now, you can worry for a reason and there's little you can do to get away from it, if it happens.

Looks like Solar Cycle 24 has begun two months ahead of schedule. I thought the sun was supposed to be at the end of its so-called 200 years of being in an active cycle? LOL...so much for that prediction!

Reply: I think their prediction was for when cycle 24 becomes dominant, and it is not there yet. Brett

Deniers are a funny lot. They are hoping -- no, preying -- that our sun goes to sleep in their hope of masking AGW and thus convincing people that it's not a problem.

Of course, solar irradiance has slightly decreased since 1950, and the correlation between global temperatures and solar cycles has been horrid after 1940. But hey, deniers have never let facts get in the way of telling us a good story.

Six months ago, solar cycles were poo-pooed by the global warming community as irrelevant.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory" July 10, 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

Now, after missing every single prediction in 2007, the same people suddenly find solar cycles interesting. The fact that we are even talking about this topic is an indication of disruption in the AGW borg.

The Met office has been highlighting their "new models" which include, "sea surface temperature" "solar variability" and "volcanoes" as cover for the failure of their models in 2007. They also have become much more conservative with their near term predictions and instead have pushed their global warming forecasts out past a time when anyone will remember.

The forecast for 2014...The new model incorporates the effects of sea surface temperatures as well as other factors such as man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, projected changes in the sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions - the first time internal and external variability have both been predicted.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070810.html

As if they can predict, sea surface temperatures, solar activity and volcanic eruptions between now and 2014. Obviously they think we are gullible and stupid, like the press they are used to dealing with.

I'm really concerned about the ski industry. Global warming advocates have been raising warning flags about the ruination of the industry due to American made CO2. (Thanks Paul for the link.)
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4011

It is already January 6, and Wolf Creek has only received 225 inches of snow. You can still see the tops of some of the trees. Scary stuff.
http://www.wolfcreekski.com/snow.asp

Kirkwood, California has only gotten 11 feet of snow in the last three days. Canada is suffering too. Mt Washington, BC only has a 140" base. And back east, Mt. Killington is hurting with a meager 50" base.

The suffering of the US and Canadian ski industries is no doubt direct retribution for the regressive environmental policies of the Bush and Harper administrations. Barack Hussein Obama will set us straight (with his mandatory 60% CO2 cuts) and bring us back into favor with the global warming gods.

The skiing community understands the problem, and is taking matters into their own hands.

To counter warming winters, Aspen has inaugurated environmental reforms—using biodiesel fuel in its snow cats

Starving poor people by converting the food supply to fuel will surely keep Aspen in favor with the gods. They have to do something about the wicked hot temperatures and lack of snow Colorado is experiencing recently.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/wrcc/30dTDeptWRCC.png

We closed December with 118 inches of snow, a new record for the month!"
http://www.aspensnowmass.com/onmountain/reports/default.cfm

Brett,

What would the consequences of the new solar Cycle be?
John D. has mentioned some disturbing things that can take place. Are those things likely to happen?

Reply: what things in particular are you concerned about?

Regards,
Emi

Oh, I forgot... Does anybody know if Winter will ever make a come back to the US? www.wxmaps.org does not show any true arctic cold spell...

Reply: perhaps in the northern high plains/Rockies this month, but the East is unlikely to see Arctic cold this month. There will be some typical January cold at times, but probably not arctic as there will be too much Pacific air mixed in.

Patrick Henry offers us a grab-bag of errors, many of them repeated. For example, he continues to retail the old "this anecdote is proof" line, regaling us with tales of local conditions. I have already shown the stupidity of this argument, and he has failed to offer any response to my demonstration, but perhaps he needs another example. So, Patrick, I will point out that a new Wal-Mart just opened in my town, bringing over a hundred new jobs to the area. Does this constitute proof that the global economy is on a big upward swing? Does this in fact offer ANY information of utility in determining the state of the global economy? Will you respond with anything more than more tales of how cold it is in Colorado?

Next, he offers us quotes to prove that the climate change community is fickle and uncertain. Of course, his source for "the climate change community" is the BBC and the British Meteorological Office. He conspicuously fails to bring us anything from the real publication of the climate change community, namely, the IPCC reports. (This may be an honest mistake -- perhaps he hasn't gotten around to reading the IPCC reports. I've asked him if he has and he never responded.)

Anyway, here's what the climate change community is really saying:

"empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristj�nsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002)."

They conclude:

"The direct RF due to increase in solar irradiance is reduced
from the TAR. The best estimate is +0.12 W m�2 (90%
confidence interval: +0.06 to +0.30 W m�2). While there have
been advances in the direct solar irradiance variation, there
remain large uncertainties. The level of scientific understanding
is elevated to low relative to TAR for solar forcing due to direct
irradiance change, while declared as very low for cosmic ray
influences (Section 2.9, Table 2.11)."

This is the straight scoop. Mr. Henry is giving you the Rona Barrett version.

Changes in the Sun�s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun�s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun�s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

�We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun�s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles� behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.�

As to what these changes are Casey says, �The sun�s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the �conveyor belt� essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA�s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing � a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a �solar hibernation,� the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.�

Patrick Henry:

It's the election season. You should throw your hat into the ring.

Americans should elect somebody who believes that today's weather is the climate (but only when it supports their position) and that the free market should rule all, (except when it shouldn't, such as when the demand for biofuels increases as a result of market forces.) If you won, we'd surely get the government we deserve.

Plus, I'm sure you have a good ol' 'Merican middle name, right? Like Hank or Bill, and not Hussein...

Oh, Global warming is real: It is only 1/2 of one degree increase in 27 years (1971 - 1998). That inconvenient little fact is what nobody wants to admit.

Since 1998's El Nino maximum (ten years) temp's have NOT increased. In fact, temps are the same now as in the 1995-1996-1997 time frame.

From 1900 - 1935, temps increased 1/2 of one degree. From 1935 to 1972, temps decreased by 1/2 of one degree. (Does anybody see a pattern here?)

Since CO2 has increased the whole time, I challenge anyone to show a link between CO2 and temperature: other than a lag of 600- 800 years AFTER temp's increasing does CO2 increase. And - magically - we are now about 600-800 years AFTER the Medieval warming period.

So CO2 is increasing - right on schedule.

Lost Boy Patrick implies that the colder it gets the more snow there is and that as it warms there will be less snow. Funny, when I was growing up up in the upper Midwest I seem to recall that heavy snowfalls has a reduced correlation with cold temperatures (e.g. there's a lot more snowfall associated with +20F than with -20F). The reason for this as I have understood is that colder air holds less moisture => less snow potential. Brett?
Reply: yes, colder air holds less moisture, so there is less snow potential when you start getting very cold.

Also, IIRC the climate models predict more intense precipitation over the long run. But perhaps snow isn't precipitation.

It is a well-known fact that the 11 year solar cycle is associated with an irradiance change of about 2 watts/meter^2 (equals about .5 w/m^2 after the geometry adjustment). There is absolutely no question that this has an effect on climate. However, the effect is small and (most important to note) evens out to nil over the long term.

As has been noted here many times, measurements of solar radiation show that there has been almost no net change over the last fifty years. The question has been the extent of the prior long-term variability.

Several decades ago, it was assumed that much of past climate variation could be explained only by significant changes in irradiance. Since then, the trend in research results has been to reduce the degree and geographic extent of what had originally been assumed to be large global climate swings (e.g., the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age), and to reduce historical variability in irradiance.

The most interesting development of the last couple of years has been that the solar physics community seems to be coalescing toward a new reconstruction that shows irradiance variability since 1600 to have had an amplitude no greater than the 11 year cycle. Quoting the author, Leif Svalgaard:

"I had two posters [at the AGU fall meeting last month], one about the correctness (or not) of the sunspot number series (both of them), and one on TSI. They are actually related as many reconstructions of TSI are based on or calibrated by the Group Sunspot Number. To claim that the sunspot number is wrong is serious business, but there seems to be a growing 'feeling' that I may be on to something. The reaction to my claim that TSI has varied a lot less than commonly assumed, i.e. that there is no 'background' long-term change, or in other words, that at each solar minimum the TSI falls to the value it had during the Maunder Minimum was well received. People like Dora Premminger, Claus Froehlich, even Scafetta (a little bit) were not too averse against my conclusions. Of course, there is more work to be done before everybody is on board. Here is my reconstruction of TSI: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf

"If I'm correct it means that 1) either the sun does not influence the climate or 2) the climate system is hypersensitive to even the smallest changes in TSI or to some other parameter that also follows the solar cycle (e.g. cosmic rays).

"There has been a steady decline in the 'background' from Hoyt-Schatten -> Lean -> Lean -> Wang -> Leif that simple extrapolation would have predicted the disappearance of the background about next year anyway, so resistance is getting weaker." (Love that dry sense of humor.)

The new reconstruction implies that prior work finding significant irradiance changes prior to 1600 is also in question. As for the possible "hypersensitivity," it would be very hard to make a case for it since no such effect has been observed in connection with the 11 year cycle.

Mark: "...solar irradiance has slightly decreased since 1950, and the correlation between global temperatures and solar cycles has been horrid after 1940."

What you have said isn't untrue. But the average TSI for the second half of the century is still higher than the first half. Also, the start of late seventies temperature rise does coincide with the beginning of the new solar cycle and a return to higher TSI levels.

Sunspots:
http://geophysics.ou.edu/solid_earth/notes/mag_earth/cycle1.gif
TSI:
http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/projects/p13/figure6.jpg

And there's more to global surface temperature than solar cycles. Don't forget the oceans. They represent 70% of the planet surface. If you add the oceanic temperature oscillation indexes (which are free of an AGW trend) into the equation, you get a close match to 20th century global temperature. In fact, I believe I've seen them compared all the way back to the Maunder minimum. Long time for a coincidence.

Good post Brett. Sorry to rain on your parade Mark, the original prediction was for Jan. 2007, that date came and June 2007 became the prediction, then in April, the above spot not appearing (as well as other heralds), March 2008 was selected. As Brett noted the committee was divided as the date of minimum does not refer to this spot's appearance but is selected by the committee considering a number of measures. Past experience indicates it will follow in 9-24 months (therefore some committee members new March 2008 was infeasible).
One member of the committee, Hathaway of NASA, having been embarrassed with his 24 prediction soon forecast 25 to be the lowest in 2 centuries (using a different model). Denialists are feeling pretty good right now, indeed.

Patrick,

Your geographic views of GW are too parochial. Believe it or not, not everything revolves around Colorado, including the Sun! And the sun cycle will only ADD to the misery, if indeed the correlation holds. I don't think that the Sun is influenced by the Earth's GW. Maybe you do.

Also, you need to consider that next year could be a drought year for Colorado. That's just the way GW is. I actually surprises me that you, a Colorado resident is not more concerned about the environment than you are. During my time there, there was much concern regarding preservation of natural resources. Your apparent lack of concern about the predicted effects of GW reflects absence of foresight. This has been present in most of your comments including those regarding forest fires, although maybe if the mega-fires burned down Colorado forests, homes and businesses, you would develop some respect for others concerns, maybe.

Actually, I'm not sure, at all, if you would.

To put the whole Climate Change issue into perspective vis-a-vis the Peak Oil Crisis, everyone needs to ask themselves, their associates, all sitting elected officials and those seeking office, especially the office of President of the United States, "What is more threatening in both the long and short terms, a beneficial 1 degree F rise in average world temperatures over the past 100 years, or a 1 percent decline in world oil production over the last 100 weeks - with steepening declines forecast? Can our economy better deal with declining fuel inventories in an environment of persistent warming, or in an environment of declining average temperatures over the next several decades, which is the most likely climate change scenario forecast by the highly reliable solar inertial motion (SIM) model?� The progress of solar cycle #24 provides manifest proof for their answers.

Deniers are a funny lot. They are hoping -- no, preying -- that our sun goes to sleep in their hope of masking AGW and thus convincing people that it's not a problem.

REPLY: Oh MULE MUFFINS!!!! This denier is patiently waiting for the sun to come alive, not only for it's affect on the our climate (hopefully making it warmer), but for improved conditions on the radio frequencies! Hate to tell ya this Marx, but the sun "going to sleep" is not going to mask your BS AGW. AGW has already been masked and already labled as a dreamed up fear mongering political crock!

62 degrees in Pittburgh 2day! Bring on the sunspots and BRING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

Today's challenge (Mark):

See if you can find Sunspot 981.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Lost Boy Patrick implies that the colder it gets the more snow there is and that as it warms there will be less snow.

Quick heads up. I'm not a theoretician and am experienced enough with real world systems to recognize that modeling or predicting a massively complex, chaotic system is doomed to failure - as the NOAA and Met climate modelers prove month after month. Rather, I devote my discussion primarily to empirical observation.

What I pointed out is that it is have been both very cold and very snowy in the west. You can wallow in theory if you like. Many scientists are arrogant enough to believe that if they personally don't understand something, then it must not be true.

Argh!!

I hate mild Pacific flow!! El Nino seems to cause alot of mild Pacific flow, at least it did last time. La Nina, its exact opposite, seems to cause... mild Pacific flow. Brett, or anybody, what sort of synoptic pattern do we have to have to not get mild Pacific flow?!