Astronomers Say New ‘Little Ice Age’ Could Trump Global Warming

iceageAstronomers from India, China and Japan have found evidence from sunspots showing that Earth may be heading into a “little ice age.”

A recent, lower than average, sunspot count by the Physical Research Laboratory in India indicates Earth could enter a period of low solar activity by 2020, according to a report published Wednesday in The Times of India. Sunspot activity is currently approaching a 200 year low.

There has been a drastic decline in the number of sunspots and a corresponding decrease in solar wind microturbulence during the Sun’s last two 11-year solar cycles, according to research published online last August.

The scientists openly worry about a repeat of the period between 1645 and 1715 AD when the sun was almost completely spotless, which coincided with most of Earth witnessing extremely harsh winters. The scientists believe that the sun has been growing less active and that sunspots have become rarer over the last two decades.

“The sun is the primary driver of the earth’s weather and climate so fluctuations in the character of the sun’s output are well-worth paying attention to,” Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller Caller News Foundation.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (12)

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [i]”A recent, lower than average, sunspot count by the Physical Research Laboratory in India indicates Earth could enter a period of low solar activity by 2020″[/i]

    [b]SUNSPOTS?[/b] …Are you telling me that [u]the sun[/u] can affect climate?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”196-to-Zero”]GR62DRV,
    Sun spot activity has been cycling down for decades now but temps have been going the other way. Just another reason why SO MANY scientists believe that there must be some other mechanism at work (CO2 anyone?).

    Check out the TSI Climate Data Record graphs.
    http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/%5B/quote%5DSo the sun [u]does[/u] affect climate? I just want to be clear here… Solar and geothermal activity is usually regarded as an afterthought, if at all, in many of the ever-changing models that seek to prove a predetermined outcome.

    And these scientists of whom you speak… How many of them rely overwhelmingly on grant funding that is [u]only[/u] available to those who toe the line on the premise of catastrophic human climate impact – which of course can only be reversed by the political prescriptions of the grant makers?

    How much grant funding and other support do you suppose is available to those who would offer alternative hypothesis or would dare publish alternative data and results?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Kopp and Lean? 😀 The same Lean caught making fraudulent “adjustments” to the Solar Data?
    [quote] Included are the original quotes and a letter from astrophysicist Richard C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites):[/quote]
    [img]http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/Willson.jpg[/img]
    [quote]And from Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) – who agrees with Willson. Klimaskeptic.cz:”The graph tampering done by Judith [Lean] and Claus [Frohlich}was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.”[/quote]

    [img]http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/Hoyt.jpg[/img]
    [quote]From astrophysicist Douglas Hoyt’s letter regarding the paper by Lean and Frolich: “Thus, Frohlich’s PMOD TSI composite is not consistent with the internal data or physics of the Nimbus7 cavity radiometer.”[/quote]
    [img]http://www.osel.cz/_img/img1269443411.gif[/img]

    Sorry Comrade Zero, but she has ZERO credibility due to fraudulently adjusting data to fit a failed model. The exact opposite of the Scientific Method.

    Once a liar always a liar. And safely discounted as a credible source. Much like your self.
    [quote]B. Perjury in Particular
    At common law (before 1827) it was unnecessary to consider separately the
    effect of conviction of perjury. One convicted of that crime was disqualified
    because it was an infamous crime, and the fact that it was directly related
    to the sacredness of the oath w-as extraneous.
    The relationship between credibility and the specific crime of perjury was
    recognized by the legislature for the first and only time in 1827. Since perjury
    was a felony, the statute disqualifying felons would have been sufficient to
    disqualify convicted perjurers. Nevertheless, the Revised Statutes also included
    a provision with the definition of perjury, that one convicted of perjury
    “shall not thereafter be received as a witness to be sworn, in any matter or
    cause whatever, until the judgment against him be reversed.”‘ 14
    This statute was not a holdover from the common-law theory that one
    guilty of an infamous crime is not to be trusted. Rather, the rationale was
    that one convicted of perjury has been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt,
    to have a flagrant disregard for the sacredness of the oath-and therefore his
    testimony thereafter became entirely untrustworthy.[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Sun spot activity has been cycling down for decades now but temps have been going the other way. Just another reason why SO MANY scientists believe that there must be some other mechanism at work (CO2 anyone?). [/quote]

    Well not so much. While it is true solar activity has been “cycling down” for decades. It is still at a higher level than it has been for about 200 years.
    [img]http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sunspot2.gif[/img]

    [quote]Claus Frohlich, meanwhile, constructed a composite time series from satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) made since the late 1970’s. His composite, the so-called ‘PMOD’ model, modifies the published results of the Numbus7/ERB and ACRIM1 science teams to provide better agreement with the predictions of a statistical model by Judith Lean based on linear regressions against solar emission and absorption line proxies for TSI.[/quote]

    The sad truth is, once one uses the unadjusted, un fraudulently “adjusted” data the sun fully explains observations. Leaving no room for “some other mechanism at work” (CO2 anyone?). Nope Sorry! It’s still the Sun Stupid!

    So half a Zero for apparatchik-ski.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    MJMD

    |

    An overall decrease in Solar activity would absolutely dwarf all man-made contributions to climate change in its effect. However, ocean acidification remains a real problem (albeit possibly a more manageable one than overall global warming). And, more importantly, so far as I know we have no truly predictive model for Solar activity, meaning that we shouldn’t allow any projected increase or decrease in sunspots to make us either hysterical or complacent.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @196

    If CO2 can do all that, how come there is NO laboratory experiment showing it can ?

    That would actually be PROOF as opposed to the irrelevant EVIDENCE you claim to have.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @196

    Firstly, you do not understand what ” Laboratory experiment ” means nor have any conception of the scientific method. You said you are a lawyer, I believe it, your scheisterism is beyond compare.

    I stand by what I have said. I speak the truth, you do not !

    Btw, what’s this ” one trick ” stuff ? Are you afraid to confront the fact that Amirlach has proven you conclusively wrong and a liar and therefor you cheaply try to belittle the argument and proof by calling it ” one trick ?”

    We’re on to your cheap bullying and lying. Why not try telling the truth ? You’d still be wrong to stick to your agenda, but it wouldn’t smell as much.

    Of course, being truthful would significantly reduce your bullying ability, so I don’t expect you to try.

    Keep blathering.
    We’ll keep laughing.
    We’ll give you all the negative attention you desire.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Let’s start with earth’s climate without the sun . Oh …so it has some influence (actually almost all the influence ) . Next the moon ‘s influence, next the …
    well basically that covers almost all of it and no matter how much Al Gore and other earth has a fever promoters yap about their oh so scary big bad wolf global warming fable they are never going to control the climate by adjusting a CO2 dial . But that was never really the point anyways was is it ? Hope to scare people enough to happily empty their wallets for a noble save the planet cause .

    I hope we find out some day that it was all part of the master plan to save the world when the unrepayable debt implosion happens . You know something real .
    Until then enjoy the warming .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    If Kopp works with a proven data fraudster, he can safely be discounted. Once a liar always a liar…
    [quote]Rather, the rationale was
    that one convicted of perjury has been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt,
    to have a flagrant disregard for the sacredness of the oath-and therefore his
    testimony thereafter became entirely untrustworthy.[/quote]

    The claim that there is a disconnect between solar activity and observed temperatures only Co2 can explain is complete and utter nonsense. This was and always has been based upon fraudulent adjustments made to the data by the IPCC.

    Sun spot counts are down, and temperatures have been flat for almost 20 years, 23 years if you look at the Satellite record. The 2016 spike is due to the same factor as the 1998 spike, El Niño.

    The real “disconnect” between observations is found when you compare what was “predicted” by CAGW, or Co2 and observed temperatures.

    The CAGW hypothesis was invalidated after 15 years of flat temperature according to NOAA and CRU.

    Not one Co2 based Model has skillfully predicted recent climate. And Natural Variability still trumps man made Co2.

    [quote]davidmhoffer

    March 2, 2016 at 10:11 am
    1. The “Pause” hasn’t disappeared. It now just has a beginning and an end. But it is right there in the data where it always was, and it doesn’t cease to exist merely because we can’t calculate one starting from the present and working backwards.

    2. The “Pause” was never significant in terms of showing the CO2 doesn’t heat up the earth. It only became significant because the warmist community (Jones, Santer, etc) said that natural variability was too small to cancel the warming of CO2 for more than a period of 10 years…er 15…er 17 and made a big deal out of it.

    So regardless of the “Pause” having ended or not, what we have is conclusive evidence that the models either:
    a) grossly under estimated natural variability or
    b) grossly over estimated CO2 sensitivity or
    c) both

    In all three scenarios above, natural variability dominates in terms of any risk associated with a changing global temperature. That’s what we should be studying first and foremost. Once we understand it, then we can determine how much CO2 changes natural variability. Trying to determine CO2 sensitivity without first understanding the natural variability baseline that it runs on top of is a fool’s errand. Unfortunately, fools seem determined and well funded, and so they continue to try and do just that.
    The world has been warming for 400 years, almost all of it due to natural variability. It will continue to warm (I expect) and most of the warming will be due to natural variability, which we just learned from this last 20 years of data is a lot bigger deal than CO2.
    [/quote]
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/07/no-statistically-significant-satellite-warming-for-23-years-now-includes-february-data/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JUDY CROSS

    |

    [quote name=”MJMD”]However, ocean acidification remains a real problem

    Nope,that’s phony too. Think about it. Warm water holds less gas than cold does….so how can a warming ocean hold more CO2?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    AHHN-GEE-ESS-KEE

    Why are your idiotic posts so important to you ? We know you need the attention and recognition. That’s why we’re giving it to you, laughingly.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    [quote name=”MJMD”]However, ocean acidification remains a real problem (albeit possibly a more manageable one than overall global warming). .[/quote]

    As this response shows, ocean acidification is the back up plan for the activists. If their political agenda can’t be justified by warming or extreme weather, then it can be by acidification. However, ocean acidification is a total fraud.

    What the researchers did was cheery pick the year 1988 as their base line. This year had the pH of the ocean near a 100 year high (less acid) so any year compared to that would be more acid. They hid what they were doing by omitting all data before 1988 from their study.

    The following gives more detail including the use of intimidation to support their cause.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/23/noaagate-how-ocean-acidification-could-turn-out-to-be-the-biggest-con-since-michael-manns-hockey-stick/

    The NOAA graph in this article ends in 2010 when the pH was 7.9. The current pH is 8.1 (less acid).

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.