Brett,

While I am not a believer in AGW I am not going to stand up and yell "Ice Age". It's good to try and predict the climate but humans do not have the technology. Sure it can cool for the next 3 decades but then it could warm up again, we will never really know until it comes. I say anything is possible and they could very well be correct, but then again they could be just like the AGWers and shouting cold instead of warming...

Climate does what is wants and humans have no say in it and we have no idea what it will do next...

People should not discount the Sun's effects on the Earth's climate. John Casey does not appear to be a climate change naysayer, but rather a pragmatist who is trying to point out that Solar activity can and does play a major role in determining the earth's climate. It will be interesting to see if his theory proves itself.
Michael Moffitt

Well, Junk Science says he's a fraud.

Be that as it may, I don't think he's proposing anything new here. Certainly it isn't as 'unprecedented' as he seem to think it is. There are many scientists that propose the idea that solar cycles (and there are many) are the driving force behind temperature cycles on decadal and longer scales. Dr Svensmark's work in attempting to establish that the sun's magnetic cycles control the volume of GCR impacting the upper atmosphere creating cloud condensation nuclei that then controls the amount of cloud cover (changing albedo enough to raise or lower temps) is an example.

The idea that a convergence of different solar cycles adds to the temp cycle isn't new either. The 1470+- year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles cited by Dr. Singer in his book, "Unstoppable Global Warming", are actually a coincidence of two cycles of 87 and 210 years. Then, of course there are the non-solar cycles -- precession (23,000 years), axial tilt (41,000 years), and orbital elliptical cycle (100,000 years) - all affecting the temp cycles as well.

All in all this guy is, in my opinion at least, just trying to hype already known information to get funding. Kinda sorta like what some climate scientists are doing.

I honestly do not believe this new study will make any difference to how people from the skeptic side or those from the AGW (now about to become ACC Anthropogenic Climate Change) side will view things. After all the majority of people have their mind made up one way or the other and few are open to sensible discussion on this issue.

Darren is spot on.......AMEN!

Last fall I looked into the scientific literature of sunspot cycles. There were dozens of predictions made as to when the next cycle might begins. And they seemed to all use different trends & theories.

It is clear the processes controlling the cycles inside the sun aren't even understood or predictable for the next cycle. So how does someone ( with zero publications ) hit upon a way to make accurate predictions several cycles in advance?

As PT Barnum may have said - there's a sucker born every minute.

Maybe this guy and the warming alarmists can duke it out since they most certainly are on opposite sides of this debate. I am not sure why I necessarily feel this way, but having experienced -30 weather several times in my life, the idea of global cooling worries me plenty. Nobody is packing their cars during the summer for any possible emergency, but they darn sure are packing them with all sorts of extra clothing, food during the winter, at least around here.

It would seem that the warming alarmists really can't call these cold alarmists a bunch of quacks since they both are advocating a pro-active position to meet climate change. The only question is what climate change is really coming and how soon and for how long. Whew, lots of think about!!!!

I think it will be hot tomorrow. Cold in January.

of course they're right, I have done extensive research on this topic and I have only come to one scientific conclusion.
Now Al Gore and his crew are all politicians, without even a minor scientific degree. Their aim is to make money and ruin the US's economy.
In the past year, the temperature has fallen around 0.7 degrees celsius, which is enough to wipe out a century of warming.
Think about it: What's more powerful: your SUV, or the sun???

This seems just as feasible as the non-proven AGW theory. After, the earth hasn't warmed in the last several years and the sun does appear to be asleep. I don't see anything close to an ice age coming out of this, but I really have no concern about the planet burning either. The earth probably will cool down some and most of us will probably make it through in pretty good shape.

Gee. Panic mongering of a different sort. This should make cold weather lovers like BT and Mark do backflips. But then again, it doesn't give a reason for their pals in big government to throw their weight around. While I beleive that glo-BULL warming is a crock (obviously), and that the lack of sunspots is screwing everything up, I don't think we should be panicing (yet) about dangerously cold weather. As far as I am concerned, where I am at, it can't get any colder! The earth will take care of itself. Get over it!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!!

I am very skeptical of these claims although I have been reading from many sources that global warming ended in 1998. Maybe it is time for accuweather to consider adding a global cooling site.

Interesting piece Bret! I have encountered the sunspot cycles and climate cycles as related in other sources (can't remember where or who offhand) and indeed this makes sence. Other factors include eccentricities of Earth's orbit, it stands to reason that the Earth's orbit shifting further out during a cool cycle of the sun would further cool the planet. However there are other space weather factors...The Earth and her solar system are hurling through space some three quarters the way out on a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy.Some say we have entered the Photon Belt already, since about 1987..In the Electric Universe Model the Stars are fueled by electrical currents through space, mostly from a galactic center. I have read interesting posts concerning a galactic cycle of some 900 thousand years where our solar system goes through a belt of photonic energy (photon belt) emenating from the galactic core. This may explain in part why other planets of our solar system are warming also. Perhaps the combination of Artificially Enhanced Global Warming (GHG or EMF or AGW)and Photon bombardment of our solar system is producing the interesting weather .... When we look at a system for analysis or troubleshooting, we need to take account of all the factors, otherwise we make erronious, though plausible, deductions! My thought here is the Global Cooling my be offset by the Photon Belt space weather etc.

This theory is along the lines of the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) hypothesis propsed by Rhodes Fairbridge. The work of Theodore Landscheidt is also somewhat similar.

What they have are observations and correlations - without a proven physical mechanism to explain it. (note the word proven - there are several proposed mechanisms including cloud formation induced by GCRs).

If you go back and look at the various solar minimums in history (Oort, Maunder, Dalton, etc.), the data matches very well with the current very low solar activity, the extended solar cycle 23, and the last 12 months of cooling trend in the temperature data.

In my opinion it is very plausible that we are heading into the next "grand minimum" and much cooler temperatures over the 2-3 solar cycles.

Dang it!

I was just beginning to enjoy the warmth and now it's over.

I don't like ice. Bad for the garden, driving, and oil drilling.

Seriously, this guy and or group has no better understanding of the climate than do the followers of Gore. No offense to any, it's just that the problem is complex and NO ONE has enough actual quality information to make a reasonable guess at the future.

I will start to think that the meteorologic sciences have a chance at scoping out the climate when a 15 day forecast verifies in both temp and precip. Oh and since the significant digits related to climate change predictions are often in tenths of a degree, the 15 day numbers should also verify to tenths of degree.

I know what you're thinking that the two forecasts are vastly different but simply put, if you can't figure out what happens short term there is no way that you can figure out long term since the initial states are incorrectly assessed.

I can't speak to this guy's actual credentials, although the staff listed on their website isn't awe-inspiring (not that degrees seem to matter anymore given the politicization of the topic). However, it doesn't seem that he is producing anything new. The Russian Academy of Sciences made the global cooling - sunspot correlation in the past as have many others. Their prediction was cooling beginning with SC25. Interestingly enough though, SC24 still has not begun (by the classic definition), and according to Solarcycle24.com there have been no sunspots at all of either cycle (23 or 24) for 16 days.

I asked in another thread but didn't receive a reply. Brett, who was counting sunspots in the 15th Century and why - and how? Astrologers maybe? I've learned a lot of interesting things in this blog and this one got my attention. Thanks.

Reply: I hear Chinese astronomers were the first, actually well before the 15th century. Galileo started observing them in the 1600's.

While I do not think AGW is a real significant concern, nor do I think the temporary lack of sunspots is either. Quite frankly, this guy sounds like a crackpot.

Hmm. Speculation is fun, but is it accurate? I agree - one the GFS is able to verify for 384 hours with little error...then we can start seriously considering climate models or predictions.

Although I am a meteorologist, and a fan of winter (because of the increase in weather)...and probably would be more entertained by colder weather - blindly believing in global cooling or warming - is a tad outlandish.

But hey, what ever entertains the mind, right? We will see what really happens eventually. Either way, we'll adapt and overcome.

Bob,

I most heartily hope that you are wrong. Living through a 'grand minimum' is not a very pleasant prospect. Interesting to note that there were warm years, in fact hot years, during the 'Little Ice age' and this was what caused most of the problems, rapid change from a warm/hot year to a series of cold years whipsawed the climate/weather systems.

Most of the most devastating storms that afflicted Europe during this period were during very cold years.

Hmmm...The 179 year Fairbridge Minimum sounds a bit more plausible:

The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.

So explained Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume.....

Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=bfeddc8e-90d7-4f54-9ca7-1f56fadc7c2b

[Just recently, ABC NEWS, Wednesday, 2 July 2008:>>

�Australian astronomers may have found a solution to how far-away Jupiter and Saturn drive the sun's solar cycle.....

...The authors propose that this spin-orbit coupling takes the form of a 9:8 resonance, with the 179 year alignment cycle of the Jovian planets being equal to nine alignments of Jupiter and Saturn and eight 22-year Hale cycles...�
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/02/2292281.htm?site=science&topic=latest

Over at solarcycle24.com they are calling it the "Gore Minimum!" :p

I'd take it with a grain of salt. But I do not expect the major media or the AGW cultists to mention it.
It might be true, but who knows.
My argument has always been that we don't have enough real data to make accurate conclusions.
In college I remember learning that astronomical accuracy didn't mean precise..it meant give or take a few light years,

I agree with this guy more than the global warming politicians. When all things are said and done, it all comes down to the sun. And I am not a scientist, but it just stands to reason that the sun has infinitely more power and control over weather than us insignificant humans. Throughout history we have always overestimated our place in the universe and this global warming scare is just another example. At some point in the future nature will put us back in our place, we have just had unusually good weather for the past couple thousand years allowing us to thrive.

The only thing I don't like is the scare tactics saying there will be mass loss of life, food, etc. That just tells me he is after funding. But, his idea is more plausible in my eyes than the warming theory.

Regardless of this chap's scientific speculation, he must be on the right track since he has already suffered ad hominem attacks from the AGW crowd. At least the AGWers on this site have been less aggressive than at some times in the past and that civility is appreciated.

This paper gives more detail on the SIM hypothesis.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

You can also goolge Theodore Landscheit and find many of his papers.

It makes a lot of sense to me - but I am not a solar physicist. Most of them do not buy into it - but they also can't explain the extended quiet of solar cycle 23 either.

According to this theory

-The new climate will produce dangerously cold weather that will result in worldwide agricultural ,social and economic disruption.

"Yeah right" Like the world has never had those problems before.

To blame the cold for agricultural,social and economic disruption would be like blaming Brett for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 off the coast of Alaska.Which actually gave the economy a boost because it created jobs for the clean up.
What a joke.

Scientists have been measuring the sun's magnetic field as a precursor to the following sunspot cycle. NASA satellite Ulysses has been measuring the sun's magnetic field for 17 years, and recently ended its mission with NASA issuing the following statement: "Ulysses ends it