Please Help Support Backcountry Notes

Paypal Button:

OR:

E-MAIL CONTACT FORM

« The American Chestnut - - "National Tree" Of The Backcountry | Main | The Price of Gas: Pelosi Fixes The Blame »
Sunday
07Dec2008

Frost Warning

Above, left: spot-free Sun; right, with sunspots.

December 7, 2008 - - In my vicinity there has been snow on the ground since mid-November, for the first time in this century. Not a lot of snow, mind you, but enough to cover the ground at higher elevations. Where there's snow, there's cold weather, and we've had plenty of that since mid-November.

If theories of solar activity are correct, there's a lot more snow and cold weather to come.

This change in the weather was predicted - - but not by the Politically Correct Science community that dominates the global-warming debate, both in academia and Washington, D.C. Once again I risk being written off as an eccentric crank of the "denier fringe" by citing the Old Farmer's Almanac, a venerable publication which has been predicting the weather and providing other useful information since 1792 without a single government grant or bailout.

The 2009 edition of the Old Farmer's Almanac, published in the summer of 2008, contains an informative article titled "Is Global Warming On The Wane?" Examining various factors including sunspots and oceanic multidecadal cycles, author Joseph D'Aleo, a co-founder of The Weather Channel, finds that they "suggest that a staggered cooling period could continue." The Almanac's long-range weather forecast called for sharply colder temperatures in much of the U.S. in December. (The Almanac was wrong about November, which turned out to be colder than predicted.) The general assessment of the weather includes the following:

Our study of solar activity suggests that as we enter solar cycle 24 we are at the beginning of a significant change. Over the coming years, a gradual cooling of the atmosphere will occur, offset by any warming caused by increased greenhouse gases. . . . Most of the nation will have below-normal winter temperatures, on average.

I live on the boundary of two Old Farmer's Almanac weather regions, Appalachia and the Ohio Valley, so I typically check both forecasts. For the first week of December, they are right on target. If our Weather Channel short-range forecasts are anywhere close to accurate, the Alamanac's predictions for the second week of December will be proven correct as well.

As for what's up with the sunspots: sunspot cycle 24 began in January of 2008 - - later than had been predicted - - with the appearance of a sunspot with the opposite magnetic polarity of those in the previous cycle. By August 2008, after the Almanac had gone to press, the sunspot count dropped to zero. That's right: zero. None. Zip, zed, zilch. See Sun poised to make history with first spotless month since 1913.

According to Sunspot Activity Notes, the recent counts have been: August, none; September, one; October, three. Science Daily reports the October count as 5. By historic standards these counts are very low. According to Science Daily:

As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.

"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."

Science Daily, Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age.

A few scientists have acknowledged that the Earth may be entering a cooling period. See The Sunspot Enigma: The Sun is “Dead”—What Does it Mean for Earth? Such thoughts are contrary to the orthodoxy of Politically Correct Science, however.  A report questioning global warming which was issued this past Thursday by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, an office responsible for developing plans for future military strategy, was immediately attacked as being "out of line" and "bizarre." See New US military report on global warming raises worry.

Yet global temperatures are going down, not up.  See Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof.  From Australia we have this perspective:

It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

The Australian, Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason.

Oh, and about those polar bears - - Arctic Sea ice, while still below the median, increased in 2008, and went through a rapid period of ice formation this past fall. See Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; ice up over 9% from last year.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:

NASA - The Sunspot Cycle

American Thinker - Sunspots and a possible new ice age (updated)

MIT Scientists Baffled By Global Warming Theory

The Australian, No smoking hot spot

IBD Editorials - See Gore, See Spot

Gore's Climate Claptrap

Current Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Cryospheric Climate Indicators

RELATED ARTICLES:

"Global Warming"Followup

A Note On The Global Warming"Debate"

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (10)

An excellent article, Jay.

I really wish you hadn't mentioned the sun spot problem. Next thing you know the environmental nuts will be preaching that end times are approaching. Earth can't survive both global warming and the sun going out.

December 8, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterJames Shott

Thanks, James.

I'm just wondering how Al Gore will take credit for the cooling trend.

December 8, 2008 | Registered CommenterJay Henderson

Sunspots run on an 11 year cycle, so for one, sunspots can't explain any of the warming we've seen in the past 2 decades nor does it even remotely suggest some sort of "ice age."

December 14, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMetatron

Or to put it a different way, have you even looked to see if the average temperature of 2008/2009 will be hotter or colder then the last time the sunspot cycle was at this point?

I'm going to go with no.

December 14, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMetatron

Metatron: Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Sunspot cycles aren't uniform, and, yes, I did.

December 14, 2008 | Registered CommenterJay Henderson

"Sunspot cycles aren't uniform"

I presume it's called a cycle for a reason though. So looking at the last time we were at this point in the cycle for the past century what do we see? Less and less correlation between the sun and temperature as time goes on. But shhhhh. don't tell the skeptics that.

December 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMetatron

Maybe you see that, but I don't.

See http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf - - at page 8, page 12

See http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24Clilverd.pdf

See http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf

December 15, 2008 | Registered CommenterJay Henderson

From your last link:

"Studies vary on the importance of direct solar irradiance especially in recent decades. Lockwood and Stamper (GRL 1999), estimated that changes in solar luminosity can account for 52% of the change in temperatures from 1910 to 1960 but just 31% of the change from 1970 to 1999.
N Scafetta and B. J. West of Duke University, in “Phenomenological Solar Signature in 400 years of Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record” (GRL 2006) showed how total solar irradiance accounted for up to 50% of the warming since 1900 and 25-35% since 1980."

That sounds about right. To dispute the above, they cite a bunch of old studies, then the TWO GUYS that still support the GCR theory. at least they have the decency to end their summary with a "MAY greatly magnify the total solar effect on temperatures" though i'll cite some more studies though::

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023621.shtml

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

For everyone else, GCR is dead (it's actually an old idea). Yeah, you can find a guy that still believes in it just like you can find people that still believe in ether. Doesn't mean they represent what current thought is in the field.

December 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMetatron

I get the feeling most nonscienfific skeptics don't understand the fact that figuring out global warming still requires SOME explanation. But they can't understand that the explanations that aren't related to the greenhouse effect are way more fanciful and require tons more assumptions. The GCR hypothesis (which is what the "solar changes and climates" report is talking around, if not explicitly mentioning") requires making up some sort of weird long term trend for cosmic rays that we don't even know exists nor can explain the cause of. But skeptics would rather go with that than believe the idea that MEN can screw up the planet.

December 15, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMetatron

If anyone is trying to follow Metatron's reasoning - - it is difficult. He is very adept at sliding off the point. When I cited to him sources which contradict his thesis, he set up what is called a "strawman" argument. The strawman is "GCR." The acronym "GCR" stands for "galactic cosmic rays"; the GCR hypothesis posits that galactic cosmic rays influence the Earth’s cloud cover and therefore have an important impact on the Earth’s climate. This is definitely NOT the same as sunspot theory. Whether GCR is "dead" or not is irrelevant to the points I am making and was irrelevant to the sources I cited (which is why, as Metatron admits, it was not mentioned). At this point, I have lost interest in fencing with Metatron; he has made it clear that he is right, and I am wrong, no matter what, so I will simply leave it at that.

December 15, 2008 | Registered CommenterJay Henderson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>