"A LONG AND LUSTROUS WINTER"?


As an engineer, trained in the sciences and the scientific method, and one who has had a lifelong affection for astrophysics, I have made some observations and found some interesting facts over the years, that pertain to the concept of global warming.
First off, here is a graph that everyone needs to be familiar with. It shows average global temperatures over time, along with sunspot cycle length over time. The correlation is very tight. Why should this be? Specifically, why the correlation to sunspot "cycle length"?
The graph is at http://www.tmgnow.com/IMAGES/lassenA.jpg and is displayed below. The red line represents solar activity and the blue line the average temperature of the earth.



The entire article, along with other interesting and supporting data and graphs, is at:http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.htmlAnother version of this graph can be found at:
http://www.john-daly.com/danetemp.gifWe know that sunspots are, among other things, indicators of total radiative output, and when there are more of them, there is more being put out. There are also graphs comparing temperature change to # of sunspots. Those graphs are good, but the correlation with the cycle length, which is based on the frequency of sunspot activity, is astounding. But, again, how does this mechanism work to increase or decrease global temperatures? There are some interesting hypotheses out there. The most popular one with those who find problems with the manmade co2 theory is that the change in the level of solar wind either allows or restricts greater amounts of galactic background cosmic rays into the atmosphere. This causes more or less ionization which either seeds more clouds, or means less cloud cover, depending on whether the solar wind is lower or higher. The presence or lack of cloud cover then determines how much radiant energy from the sun gets reflected or absorbed, resulting in lower or higher temperatures globally.

This entire theory is examined in detail at http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
For those who still doubt a relationship, or doubt that the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age (and similar events) have any relationship, see the following graphs.

Showing temperature ranges during the relevant time frames:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/MWE-LIA.gif

Showing sunspot activity during the same time period:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/sunspots.gif


These are part of a larger article found at:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htmQuoting from that article, regarding these two graphs:

"The most striking feature of the above 400-year record of solar variability is the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period on the sun in which there were practically no sunspots at all. It's as if the sun had `stopped breathing'. But even before 1640 when the Maunder Minimum started, the cycle was clearly fragmented and irregular in contrast with the solid rhythmic cycles of subsequent years after 1710. When we compare this extraordinary solar event with the climate record from Fig.1, we can see the Maunder Minimum occurred at exactly the same time as the lowest point of the Little Ice Age.
The inference is clear. The variable sun appears to have caused the Little Ice Age and in all probability caused the Medieval Warm Period too. Carbon 14 isotopes are used as a proxy for solar activity prior to 1600 AD and this indicates a high level of solar activity during the medieval period, resulting in climatic warmth, and also a reduced level of activity during a cold period called the `Sporer Minimum' centered around 1350 AD."

There is much more on this web site, very much worth reading, and very much needing a detailed and exhaustive rebuttal by agw proponents if they expect us to consider any other alternative conclusions. To discount or dismiss it is to admit defeat, imo.

Now, here is where some speculation comes in that I find interesting. A researcher has been studying solar cycles and Jupiter cycles of various sorts and has mapped some interesting data. I am not sure of his correlation of sunspot activity to Jupiter's perihelion, but he is the only one I have been able to find who has tried to graph a supposed 200+ year cycle of "solar intensity". I keep reading about it and it comes out at 206, 211, etc, but his was the only site where I could find any attempt to make some sort of graph of it.

He has a graph showing sunspot activity. Where we don't have have sunspot data, but aurora data, he uses that to approximate the sunspot activity since solar wind also effects the intensity of the aurora borealis effect at the poles. Some of the other sites already referenced in this post contain data showing a very tight correlation to sunspots and the resultant effect on auroras. The graph has a lower line, showing the period from 1600 to 1820 and an upper line showing 1821 to 1994. Here is a copy of his graph, where I have added some reference point years on it:



The entire article is at:

http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari6.htmNote that the period between 1600 and 1710 reaches a low that tracks with the Maunder Minimum and the "Little Ice Age" mentioned above. Note too that in the first part of the 1800's. leading up to the end of the graph on the lower line, 1820, tracks with an event known as "The Year Without a Summer". It was a low period during which there were also a series of volcanic eruptions at Mount Tambora in Indonesia. The resulting dust in the air further lowered the amount of sunlight (radiant energy) reaching the earth, such that in 1816, worldwide growing seasons did not properly occur. There were many deaths during the abnormally cold winter and famine due to food shortages caused by the minimal growing season. More can be read about this at:

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

Note that we are now past the end of the upper graph, and if it repeats the 220 year cycle, we should be entering another sudden and long drop in sunspot activity. In fact it has already started as of last year. This is the lowest sunspot activity in decades. Even without a volcanic eruption, if the pattern holds true, we can expect to see an unprecedented period of global cooling for some years to come. This, exactly at a time when the reigning theory of political correctness, anthropogenic global warming, is seeking to massively move the world's industries and peoples to adopt poverty inducing practices and life styles that would drive temperatures even lower, assuming their plans actually do anything beyond bankrupting the economies and productivity of any nation that adopts them.

I am afraid this would not be a "lustrous winter" as Chekhov wrote, albeit it might be a long one.

Rick (rixshep)