Published by paulmacrae on 04 Jun 2008 at 11:01 am
Are sunspots to blame for climate change?
Paul MacRae, May 31, 2008
“It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.”
–from “The Deniers: Our spotless sun.”
Those who still think humans are to blame for planetary warming and cooling should have a look at Lawrence Solomon’s article in the National Post, May 31, 2008, “The Deniers: Our spotless sun.”
It shows pretty conclusively that changes in sunspot activity have caused major climatic changes in the past (the Medieval Warm Period, 800-1350, and the Little Ice Age, 1350-1850), and that low sunspot activity now may bring on another cooling that we will like far less than warming (which usually brings benefits).
The graph to the right shows sunspots and temperature for the last 150 years (Friends of Science website).
Below that is a graph showing sunspot activity and climate for the past 400 years (from Global Warming Art).
Global warming alarmists like to point out that the current warming began about in about 1850, when industrialization was also on the rise. If the human-caused carbon dioxide theory of warming was true (it isn’t, as the sunspot data shows, but if it was true), then industrialization took us out of a cold spell into more benign conditions. We should be grateful to those grim Satanic mills!
Ironically, if the planet gets colder, many of the apocalyptic predictions of the global warming alarmists that didn’t occur because the planet warmed — like mass starvation as prophesied by Paul Ehrlich in The Population Bomb — may yet come true. Why? Because a warmer planet = longer growing seasons and more cropland available in the vast northern regions.
We’re better off with a warming planet than a cooling one. Let’s hope the climate “consensus” starts looking at the actual evidence, rather than the IPCC reports, and revises its hypothesis toward natural, rather than human, causes of climate change before we do any more damage to the world economy, not to mention common sense.
Heidi on 07 Sep 2008 at 8:45 am #
Why has sun spot cycle length, as appose to solar irradience in watts per square meter been measured in the y axis of the graph on the top? What does the unit y represent?
Mark on 11 Sep 2009 at 6:56 pm #
Read you on WUWT! Nice web site and nice to see a journalist (even an ex one as you claim) with some integrity in terms of reporting on what’s really happening rather than just on their misinformed personal opinion!
One thing you may want to elaborate on is the whole sunspot thing! We’re going through a real-time experiment right now with solar activity levels at low levels not seen in a century! Once we get by the current El Nino, expect the drop off in temperatures to continue. If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest you read Svensmark’s and Calders book “The Chilling Stars”.
One key measure I track is cosmic rays levels since if Svensmark is correct, it is the best indicator of what’s really driving the climate (with solar activity modulating cosmic ray levels).
As per the WUWT posts, the Oulu monitoring station gives good data and graphs:
Go to the bottom of:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
Sample graph:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/08/11&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/09/11&endtime=04:29&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on
The key though as I showed in a link in WUWT is both the level and DURATION of cosmic ray levels (both high and low). If you track the cumulative difference between the average of their strength and their point-in-time strength you can clearly see why temperatures climbed through the 80’s and 90’s thorugh to the 2000’s despite no apparent jump in PEAK strength (noting that we likely would have seen peak temperatures in the early 90’s if it hadn’t been for Pinatubo).
http://www.geocities.com/mcmgk/Cumulative_CR_Inverse.jpg
Steve on 10 Jan 2010 at 6:44 pm #
Heidi
Solar irradiance is not the primary factor in climate change due to the Sun (as argued by many global warming zealots). Solar sunspot cycles have many effects on climate.
Solar activity is directly related to the amount of cosmic radiation that reaches the earth. It has been shown that cosmic radiation induces cloud formation in the earth’s atmosphere and that clouds reflect the sun’s energy away from the earth causing cooling. The more cosmic rays that reach the atmosphere the more clouds there are and the cooler the earth. Conversely, when cosmic radiation is low, fewer clouds form and the warmer the earth.
When sunspot activity is high the Sun emits more energy in the form of solar wind (particles), more intense magnetic fields, and light energy (irradiance). While the irradiance heats the earth directly, the solar wind and magnetic field protect the earth (and the solar system) from cosmic radiation originating beyond our system. Thus lower cosmic rays mean low cloud formation and we get a double whammy – higher irradiation and lower cloud formation resulting in higher temperatures on earth. Therefore large sunspot activity equals higher temperatures.
Now that sunspot activity is unusually low, we are not as protected from cosmic radiation, causing more cloud formation and the Sun is emitting less energy therefore the earth is cooling. The correlation is not entirely the result of irradiance. The correlation is with the number of sunspots and the sunspot activity. The length of the sunspot cycle (the y axis) is a direct measure of sunspot activity.
The sunspot activity is key.
mark on 27 Apr 2010 at 4:12 am #
Does that graph work with number of sun spots rather than sun spot cycle? Why use the cycle length if the number of sun spots is key.
Doesn’t the second graph show a decrease in sunspots even though the first graph shows an increase in temperature?
Paul MacRae on 27 Apr 2010 at 10:27 am #
Mark,
Good questions.
The lines in the first chart refer to fluctuations in the sun’s magnetism, as reflected in the number of sunspots (more magnetism equals more sunspots). The dots show how long it took for a complete sunspot cycle from maximum to minimum and back to maximum (the average is 11 years).
The second graph does show a decrease in sunspots in the 21st century, and there has been a flat-lining and then decrease in temperature during this time, not an increase as many people continue to believe, including the IPCC (which in its 2007 report described the “warming” of the 21st century as “unequivocal” when no warming has occurred). The sunspot numbers have been the lowest in the past century, which means cooling, not warming.
Sunspot numbers (and therefore solar magnetism) seem to be a far more reliable predictor of temperature than carbon dioxide emissions, which have been on a steady increase while temperatures have fluctuated. The other major predictor of temperature is ocean cooling and warming cycles. Carbon dioxide is a bit player when it comes to temperature, although that’s not the “consensus” position, of course.
mark on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:11 pm #
Paul,
Thanks for your quick reply.
Could you please point me in the direction of the report that shows the correlation between cosmic radiation and cloud formation. Where do you get your information showing that there hasn’t been any warming since 1998? All i can find is data sets that show otherwise…
Thanks
Paul MacRae on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:42 am #
Mark,
Happy to do so.
The cosmic radiation and cloud formation source is The Chilling Stars, by Svensmark and Calder. There’s information on it in Unstoppable Global Warming, by Singer and Avery. And lots of information on the internet. I’ve got a few paragraphs about it in my book. It’s not accepted by the IPCC, by the way, but then, it doesn’t agree with their theory….
To check out warming, or not, go to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html. It’s a NOAA site that allows you to graph temperature trends from 1985 to 2010. Set the temperature to “Annual,” and the dates to 1997 at the start and 2010 at the end, and see what you get. The U.S. has the best temperature records of any nation, so we can assume that if it’s cooling in the U.S., it probably cooling everywhere else, on average.
I’m curious to know what datasets are showing warming. Even Hadley CRUT shows non-warming and then cooling in that time (see “How the Hadley Centre spins the data on non-warming”).
Let me know what you discover…..
Paul
Bud on 28 Sep 2010 at 10:15 am #
Paul,
“The U.S. has the best temperature records of any nation, so we can assume that if it’s cooling in the U.S., it probably cooling everywhere else, on average.”
I think that’s quite a non sequitur you’ve put together. Do you think you might try to back that one up?
Paul MacRae on 28 Sep 2010 at 11:20 am #
Bud
I suspect this comment should be going with the NOAA blog, and I’ll try to back my comment up in my next blog, which discusses the accuracy of the NOAA and Goddard Institute temperature records. Both show a lot of warming (.2°C in the past decade) when the other three major monitoring agencies (UAH, RSS and Hadley) show much less warming in the same time, to the point of being statistically insignificant.
Logically, I find it hard to believe that the U.S. could cool .4°C in the past decade (as shown by the NOAA graph of temperatures over time in the continental US) while the planet, overall, warmed .2°C. That’s a difference of .6°C. If that makes sense to you, I’d be interested in hearing your argument.
Bud on 29 Sep 2010 at 3:48 pm #
Paul,
Oh I see. You find it hard to believe, so the data must be wrong.
Don’t try to make it my problem to convince you that the data is correct. You’re the one making the claims here. It’s up to you to prove it. Looks to me like you don’t have a real argument.
Dan on 27 Feb 2011 at 7:15 pm #
Hmm. Why would anyone who knows what “climate” is choose 1997 to 2010? Try 1965 to 2010, for example. Look at summer or spring for contiguous USA. Look city by city; that is the interesting thing. Houston has actually cooled (unlike 90% of the rest of the sites). Better yet, look at the whole global temperature data, not just one country.
kenneth w dickman on 30 Apr 2012 at 11:58 pm #
Paul , i have one regret , it has taken me so long to find your work .
we think alike in many ways & i was about to do something akin to your ” causes of climate change, ” low & behold you already have it on the net , i see you’re stuck on the
second last step of cause & effect though , the fluctuating sunspot numbers .
i too came from a working background to try my hand at drought control upon retireing
33 years hense , you may ask why is it that a couple of working class amateurs like us can get to uderstand the workings of our solar system when the experts cannot .
the answer to that can be summed up in one word ” corruption ” , the universities have a cosy little numbers game going with the governments of the world ,so why should they solve anything , the moment they do the funding stops .
my stuff on the “short & longer-term planetary effects on sun & earth ” energy & enviorment , 2006 , has never been challenged , also on the web is :-
http://www.planetarytheory.com they are so far advanced that ” mainstream ” have declaired it out of bounds to the meek & mild of the arbiter of scientific debate & their peer review system that effectivly locks out all outsiders to their exclusiveness .
i hope you’re still monitoring this site & reply .
Regards & thank’s for the fantastic graph .
Kenneth .