The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period.My past posts also discussed this phenomenon and the so called Maunder Minimum "an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century." The BBC article also references this theory:
Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity.
According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again.
"Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."
In the mid-17th Century, a quiet spell - known as the Maunder Minimum - lasted 70 years, and led to a "mini ice age".
This has resulted in some people suggesting that a similar cooling might offset the impact of climate change.
So do you think "a big scientific debate" surrounding data that is "baffling astronomers" and that in the past was associated with a "mini ice age" might give the climate scientists some pause before asserting unequivocally that a catastrophic warming is occurring?
According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic. "I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case," he said.
"...If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now."
What? I thought the cycle could last a hundred years. How do we know how much of an effect this could have?
How can he state this with certainty? He just said that over the next one hundred years the sun could continue cooling until it reaches the Maunder Minimum. Isn't that the same time over which we are supposed to roast to death? Why is he alleging that these facts are "consistent with global temperature rise"? Don't expect such questions to be asked by the modern day Council of Nicaea (the IPCC). The article reiterates the Council's orthodox decree:
Professor Lockwood believes that as well as the Sun's 11-year cycle, there is an underlying solar oscillation lasting hundreds of years.
He suggests that 1985 marked the "grand maximum" in this long-term cycle and the Maunder Minimum marked its low point.
"We are re-entering the middle ground after a period which has seen the Sun in its top 10% of activity," said Professor Lockwood.
"We would expect it to be more than 100 years before we get down to the levels of the Maunder Minimum."
He added that the current slight dimming of the Sun was not going to reverse the rise in global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"What we are seeing is consistent with a global temperature rise, not that the Sun is coming to our aid."
...the IPCC projects that the world will continue to warm, with temperatures expected to rise between 1.8C and 4C by the end of the century.
So despite iron clad assurances that these observations should not change orthodoxy, the article fittingly ends with scientists giddy over a "unique opportunity":
No-one knows how the centuries-long waxing and waning of the Sun works. However, astronomers now have space telescopes studying the Sun in detail.
According to Prof Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Oxfordshire, this current quiet period gives astronomers a unique opportunity.
"This is very exciting because as astronomers we've never seen anything like this before in our lifetimes," he said.
"We have spacecraft up there to study the Sun in phenomenal detail. With these telescopes we can study this minimum of activity in a way that we could not have done so in the past."
Well, I guess it is "very exciting" that "we have spacecraft up there" to study that enormous ball of gas in the sky since "no one knows" how the "waxing and waning of the sun works". Given that the scientists are baffled and have never seen anything like this before in their lifetime, can we shut the computer model down for a bit and ,uh, check out this whole "sun" thing before we destroy the economy in order to save ourselves?
Additonally, let me submit that although these scientists are baffled, I am 100% certain that the most dangerous scientific phenomenon facing man today is the computer model which codifies and extrapolates massive philosophical errors, viz., an invalid process of induction on the part of these climate scientists and the anti-human ideology of environmentalism.