Solar progression - Cycle 24 looks to be weaker than predicted what will this mean for climate?

It is giving us the opportunity to test the thesis that sunspots directly effect our global temperatures.

The global warmingists would get what they want... and they could enjoy the hard times that come with colder temperatures.

They'll find some way to blame us for colder temperatures though... or perhaps they'll be destroyed by angry mobs...

I am actually very dubious of anyone's ability to predict the strength of solar cycles, simply because there have been so few that we've noticed that no one has had any practice. The prediction for the next several cycles has been for weaker cycles for a decade or more. (Not new news.) They did get the pathetic strength of this one right, however.

I honestly believe we are approaching another grand solar minimum similar to the Dalton or Maunder minimum. As of now solar cycle 24 is as weak as the start as the Dalton minimum or solar cycle 5 and I would expect solar cycle 25 to be weaker then solar cycle 24. Anytime in the next few years will be the start of a mini-ice age. I have also heard the earth will gradually head into a ice age over thousands of years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the...

“More than half the HadCRUT3 global temperature rise of 0.0046°C yr−1 since 1850 can be attributed solar activity. This leaves a temperature rise of 0.0022°C yr−1 since 1850 to be explained by other causes, which also may be solar with a longer time scale."

“The relations found indicates a temperature drop of 0.9°C globally during the newly started solar cycle 24. For measuring stations in Norway and Europe, the temperature decline has already started.”

(Solheim et al, 2011)

The correlation strength between global temp analomy vs. last three solar cycle length is r^2 = 0.8911... the correlation strength of the relationship to carbon dioxide is less than 0.44 over 100 years; over the last decade, it is negative.

“…Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) …demonstrated a relationship between solar cycle length (in one cycle) and temperature over the following solar cycle…”

“…Butler and Johnson (1996). …Armagh in Northern Ireland, …0.5° C temperature decline for every extra year of solar cycle length…in Central England: 0.6° C/yrscl; in Portland Maine, and Hanover New Hampshire: 0.7° C/yrscl

“Reichel et al. (2001) concluded that the right cause-and-effect ordering, in the sense of Granger causality, is present between the smoothed SCL and the cycle mean temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere land air temperature in the twentieth century at the 99% significance level."

Actually most solar physicists say it might has as much as 10% of the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that's a best case of our having several consecutive weak cycles. Even if we are so fortunate to have a period as weak as the Maunder Minimum, it would offset global warming by 0.3 degrees in the next 90 years at most. It will not come close to offsetting atmosphere-driven warming, which will likely be about 3 full degrees over that same period. That is what solar scientists are actually calculating.

i in my view imagine the paper is of low high quality. It shows graphs of distinct time scales, over distinct aspects and regardless of if the call says the paper makes a speciality of the U. S. purely, the topic is inherently about the total globe. image voltaic interest isn't restricted to the U. S., and in case you'll educate that image voltaic interest is using the elements, your paper can't be about the U. S. purely. besides, in the textual content Archibald makes a speciality of temperature hikes, and disregards the lengthy run traits. This paper makes use of the incorrect questions, and for this reason isn't in a position to allure to reliable conclusions. Granted, some climate change proponents have performed a similar. and that i also consider you that there is the kind of ingredient as a international warming scare. i changed into not particularly chuffed at the same time as Al Gore began to discuss "international Warming" and confirmed his relations pictures. yet that doesn't push aside the technology. The image voltaic cycle is a real problem to formulating sound climate guidelines. and regardless of in case you disagree with the technology in the back of climate change, a climate coverage is major. the hazards are to tremendous to shove below the carpet. analyze it to the possibility of a terrorist attack. the possibility to at least one is narrow, yet nevertheless you do each attempt to steer clear of one from happening. What i concern is that a international cooling will distract the inhabitants from the growing to be disadvantages that are concerned about unbalancing the composition of our environment. by utilising taking section in on little while period transformations, and providing climate change as a outdoor journey, I concern the environmental move has shouted one a wolf cry to many. the standard problem with climate change is that's a large probability over lengthy time period classes, that would purely be seen via the paintings of many scientists. once the damage is performed there's no turning again, so the purely 2 concepts are: take the possibility, or do something on the theory of incomplete coaching. yet i'm satisfied that you submit this link, dr Jello, because it promises reliable textile for communicate. i imagine the topic matters of probability administration, and the phenomenology of climate change, pretty to the lay public, are matters that receive too little interest. i imagine that's extra useful than the prevalent sneers in the course of democrats about taxes and oppression. shop it up!

According to nearly all scientists, solar cycles have a trivially minor impact on climate nowadays compared to human greenhouse gas emissions. Any one, except a real specialist, paying detailed attention to solar cycles, out of some general concern for the economic impact of future climate change would -to be consistent- have to be a hundred times more concerned about fossil fuel consumption, enhancement of efficiencies, development of alternatives, and so forth. Will you be posting 100 questions now about how to cut through anti-science nonsense that passes for discussion with many, and work towards establishing a sensible energy policy based on ending the gargantuan public subsidies enjoyed by oil and coal companies?

Well to be skeptical, I think it means that solar models are not that accurate and thus future solar activity projections likely have greater uncertainty. Of course, I believe that to be true about climate models as well.

So if you try to predict future climate using two inaccurate models, what do you get? I don't know but probably not much.

And for the record, global cooling worries me a lot more than warming as far as potential harm. Wouldn't it be ironic if fossil fuels ended up saving our asses?

If it indeed turns out to be weaker than cycle 23, we will get some cooling. No doubt about it.

-----------------------