Do you agree with David Archibald's position on the dangers of Solar Cycle 24?

I don't know if I agree with the idea of "danger" but I do agree with the idea that this cycle is going to create some trouble.

The 11 year cycle is a pretty reliable thing. After looking at the graphs of the solar cycles, it appears that the cycles are regular and then just suddenly drop into almost nothing, and stay at almost nothing for some time.

All the HAMS I know have been scratching their heads and warming up their radios for the next cycle for two years now, and they haven't seen anything. It appears that the cycles have stopped, and in the past that's meant that we go for an unpredictable amount of time with no sunspots.

Time with no sunspots have meant cold cold times on earth, and contrary to what some AGW believers say, they can't deny that correlation. (it works every time.)

We have no ability to predict what the sun will do, however. It could stay dormant for a thousand years, or pop up with a new cycle tomorrow. So, we just need to take whatever comes our way. People have done it before and we can do it again.

Edit:

I believe the technical term for Dana's response is "Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!" or LLPOF when you're in the business.

Clearly what you're referring to above has nothing to do with any opinion on CO2, so Dana is calling your apple a duckbilled platypus with his first reference. The other reference he has is another political hack piece. So I believe Dr. J, you can chalk up another sputtering angry response, which I believe is the same as him saying "you win."

I personally think the paper is of low quality. It shows graphs of different time scales, over different areas and although the title says the paper focuses on the US only, the topic is inherently about the entire globe. Solar activity is not confined to the US, and if you are going to prove that solar activity is driving the climate, your paper cannot be about the US only. Moreover, in the text Archibald focuses on temperature hikes, and disregards the longer term trends. This paper uses the wrong questions, and therefore is not able to draw good conclusions.

Granted, some climate change proponents have done the same. And I also agree with you that there is such a thing as a global warming scare. I was not particularly happy when Al Gore started to talk about "Global Warming" and showed his family pictures. But that does not dismiss the science.

The solar cycle is a real problem to formulating sound climate policies.

And even if you disagree with the science behind climate change, a climate policy is necessary. The risks are to great to shove under the carpet. Compare it to the risk of a terrorist attack. The chance to one is slim, but still you do every effort to prevent one from happening.

What i fear is that a global cooling will distract the populace from the growing risks that are involved in unbalancing the composition of our atmosphere. By playing on short term changes, and presenting climate change as a backyard event, I fear the environmental movement has shouted one a wolf cry to many. The fundamental problem with climate change is that is a big risk over long time periods, that can only be seen through the work of many scientists. Once the harm is done there is no turning back, so the only two options are: take the risk, or do something on the basis of incomplete information.

But i am glad that you post this link, dr Jello, because it provides good material for discussion. I think the issues of risk management, and the phenomenology of Climate Change, especially to the lay public, are topics that receive too little attention. I think this is more productive than the usual sneers towards democrats about taxes and oppression.

Keep it up!

Author aside, we know that solar activity is a key driver of climate, the IPCC acknowledge this, they also acknowlege that they do not understand the suns roles and the feedbacks it causes.

During the Maunder Minimum solar activity was only 0.15 below the mean, and the Medievil maximum was caused by an increase 0.2-0.45 over the mean (IPCC, 2007) so we know small variations in solar activity has a large impact on climate even though we dont fully understand why.

From empirical data there is good evidence that the sun has been the primary cause of the warming this centuary, being higher than the medievil optimum which was 3 degrees warmer than current temps (Petit et. a, 1999; IPCC, 1990) and was the most active for the last 11,400 years (Usoskin et al., 2003; Hathaway et al., 2004; IAU, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005). It also correlates much much better than co2.

The sudden drop in solar activity has coincided with rapid cooling which maybe coincidence but it also could further backs up this theory and the peer reviewed papers that support it.

I think there is a good case for the sun being a key climate driver, and this is backed up by the paleoclimate history of earth. I would rather see warming than cooling as it results in less extreme weather and net benefits.

Interesting article. It would be nice if it were true, but I'm not qualified to give an answer on that. (I've only spent a 1/2 hour reading it, for one thing). It is obvious that the sun drives the Earth's climate, including long-term climate changes.

A point I do find worth mentioning however, is that Archibald is claiming that the next set of solar cycles will be significantly smaller than the recent ones, which I find rather remarkable. How is it that he is so certain the trend will be reversed starting immediately and not say, 5 or 10 solar cycles from now? And just why is an Australian telling the U.S. to burn more coal, disregarding the air pollution (beyond CO2) and environmental destruction of coal compared to even petroleum? Our coal reserves won't last long if we substitute it for petroleum (via coal-to-gas projects). The science is interesting, but he diverts into some unstable politics in the second half.

I do agree and we already started seeing much lower temperatures around the world.

I don't mind the snow, though I doubt I'll see it here in Los Angeles ☺, but my family in Buenos Aires, Argentina already saw it last year for the first time in 90 years and this past winter was also brutal (unlike previous ones).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6286484.stm

But most importantly, is acknowledging the economical decline experienced in past periods of reduced levels of solar activity, which is exactly what we don't need right now.

As an outdoor enthusiast and spending much time in the back country of Colorado for over 40 years now and been blessed and cursed to be a world traveler, I can speak from a position of personal and intimate experience about AGW. Over this time I have seen the developments and proliferation of human activities not just in Colorado but many parts of the world that I visited decades ago and have recently revisited... the degradation and decline of entire eco systems is staggering, depressing and has made me fall to my knees and weep more than once. Those of you that claim mankind has no impact and we don't matter must not get outdoors much and take note of what is happening in our own lifetimes. I have witnessed our blue skies fade and the stars even far from cities get fainter and fainter every year... I have hiked through the forests of Colorado and seen the destruction by pine beetles because of less colder winters. I have taken note of the little rodents called Picas and their big brothers the Marmots that were once abundant at tree line disappear from many places do to climate change... I have been to Alaska and spoken with Eskimos about the new insects that appear every year that they do not have names for, and seen the effects of melting permafrost on the dieing forest there... In Jamaica and other parts of the Caribbean I snorkeled in the 70s above beautiful thriving reefs, I've returned to bleached out dead zones due to ocean acidification from CO/2 increases, and seen ghost town resorts on beaches that are filled with trash now and not people... All these these things that I have seen and experienced way heavily on my heart... the lack of recognition of these things going on and the ignorance and antagonism shown here to the people who speak truth and not just hollow words will come back on many of you when you begin to see for yourself what is happening, and why, and by whom. I want you to know that I do a smudge and pray for everyone to come together and see what we are doing to this planet and work as one to make it right again, rather than be divided and fail by continuing down this evil path of self destruction. Give all the thumbs down you want, it only shows you are sticking those thumbs in your own eyes so you can remain blind. We have little time to change course before we reach a tipping point, a point of no return... those of you that remain part of the problem and refuse to be part of the solution will actually suffer the most due to your denial of reality, lack of vision and thus being prepared for the worst case scenarios, you will live with the fate you create.

Yes I agree with his assessment. I feel we have experienced a respite from cold temperatures during the late 80's, 90's and the beginning of the 2000's, but that time of mild winters is over.

I mentioned last January that if the jet stream pattern we had last winter happened again this winter it would start earlier this year. If I'm right all of us that live in the upper half of the Northern Hemisphere can expect a good amount of snow in November again.

I know its sad to say goodbye to those snow less Novembers, but I feel we will have to do that.

What drives climate, the sun drives climate and greenhouse gases moderate climate fluctuations. This is where the basic error of judgement is made about greenhouse gases in general and Co2 in particular.

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-glo...

This link is a very basic study of climate interactions and how they work in the real world.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

This is the history of how Co2 became the culprit in something that never happened. The basic flaw in reasoning that led to the AGW hypotheses is that the global temperatures of the late 1800s were normal and desirable while people with a better scientific and historical perspective knew they were at the low end of the cycle.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5164

Some more research that illustrates how the mistake was made placing the blame on Co2 instead of sunspot activity.

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap4.htm

Added documentation on how the weather cycles are driven by solar activity and extremes are moderated and balanced by greenhouse gases. These gases in combination with the thermal storage of the oceans work to keep the planets temperature in balance within a fairly narrow range compared to what it would be without them.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid...

More on how the atmosphere and oceans work together to moderate the worlds climate and keep it in a comfortable range.

http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/cli...

Clear information on solar minimums and maximums and how they effect climate variability. Our sun is a variable output star and a misunderstanding of this variability is a major reason the AGW supporters have made so many errors in their climate models.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/littlemwp.php

Added studies on climate fluctuation over wide periods of time showing that while we are warmer than 1850 currently it is cooler and milder than previously documented climate optimums.

This paper has been roundly rebutted elsewhere. For example the Realclimate article Dana highlighted, as well as the critique I am posting here.

As such it is just another example of bad science that Climate Change Deniers keep wheeling out to back up their outdated claims. David's motivation is made clear by his statement in Jennifer Marohasy's blog of the Bali Climate Change Conference, where he states that he is, "proud of the role that (he and his) team had in thwarting the Forces of Darkness." So, by his own admission, he is playing a political game that has nothing to do with truth or science and everything to do with preserving "Business As Usual" for another couple of decades until he and his pals have retired.

Here's an example, from Eric Swanson on Google's globalchange discussion group.

"Archibald's presentation is so bad its laughable.

First off, he provides no references and no sources for his data. Does that matter? Well, looking at the first figure, which is claimed to be "The 29 years of high quality Satellite Data". But, which analysis of "the satellite data" is it? There have been several different attempts to analyze the data from the MSU, starting with Spencer and Christy's work. This batch looks like S & C's so-called "middle tropospheric" set, based on the MSU channel 2 data. Back in 1992, S & C claimed that this data set was flawed, as it included weighting from the lower stratosphere, which was known to be cooling due to ozone depletion. S & C then produced their TLT, or Lower Tropospheric analysis. If Archibald used the MT data, it would not be a surprise that little or no warming is seen. It's noteworthy that Bob Carter also incorrectly used this data in his presentation before Congress. I think Vincent Grey used it also. All three are wrong.

Archibald continues, showing a graph of global sea-ice area. But, the important changes seem to be happening in the NH and are especially evident in the minimum extent, which has exhibited a very strong negative trend. Last summer saw the least sea-ice extent in the available record. While that low value may not be repeated this year, the trend before last year was quite negative.

Next, we see data for 5 rural sites around Georgia. Archibald then asserts, without any attempt at proof, that the variation is due to solar effects. He completely ignores the Dust Bowl years, which were the result of very poor agricultural practices after WW I. Abut the same time, the cotton farms of the southeast were decimated by the Boll Weevil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil

This period was also the time of the Great Depression, during which time many small farmers left the land. Later, land formally used for growing crops was converted to massive tree farms, which have a cooling effect on local microclimate.

Archibald goes on to present a graph with temperature and solar anomaly, claiming a cause and effect relationship. Trouble is, the solar insolation data does not have a scale associated with it! And, he is using only U.S. data, again ignoring the impact of the Dust Bowl years, as well as the possible impact of air pollution from 1940 thru the start of the Clean Air Act.

Moving on, he shows a temperature series for Central England, pointing to the time of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums in sunspot activity. No problem there, but one will notice that the low temperature supposedly associated with the Dalton Minimum is less than that of the Maunder Minimum. Later, on page 9, he shows data for 3 European stations, claiming that the 2 degree decline at one station was the result of the Dalton Minimum. But, wait, what about The Year Without Summer? What about the Tambora volcanic eruption, which appears in the ice core record as the strongest sulfate spike in the past 400 years. Not only that, but there was another eruption a few years earlier, so the cooling seen in Europe and New England was most likely due to the short term impact of those volcanic eruptions.

Back on page 6, Archibald shows a graph supposedly representing temperatures during the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age. He gives no source for this graph. The figure looks very much like one presented in the First IPCC report, one which Tom Crowley called a "cartoon" in sworn testimony before a Congressional Committee. And, Crowley's graph did not have a temperature scale, as I recall. Where did that temperature scale come from? Without knowing the source, who can say?

Archibald goes on and on, with lots of unproven assertions, finally getting to the end on page 29, where he claims (as do others) that the temperature since 1998 has not shown any warming, which is likely to be true, since 1998 was an usually warm year. Over the longer time of the record, say, the last 30 years, the Earth is seen as warming. Picking the very warm year as the start of one's period of reference is completely bogus.

I think Archibald's entire report is very bad science and should be ignored. I hope you will agree.

E. S. "

Jello, better watch out because next week they will find a way to blame the lack of sunspots on Arnold's Hydrogen fueled Hummer!