The "New Face" of Global Warming

Just when the "science is settled" you have three major organizations reporting that the old sun is up to some new tricks...

Here is a news report by John Coleman, founder of the weather Channel and now at KUSI-TV in San Diego:


If you would like more detail, here is an article by Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.

The three studies released by NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network this week, predicting the virtual vanishing of sunspots for the next several decades and the possibility of a solar minimum similar to the Maunder Minimum, came as stunning news. According to Frank Hill,

“the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.”

The last time sunspots vanished from the sun for decades was during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1700 AD was marked by drastic cooling of the climate and the maximum cold of the Little Ice Age.

If you read the whole article you will find the following illustration to help understand the effect of previous solar minimums. Note that the actual change in solar irradiance is quite small. That is why Henrik Svensmark's research and theory are so important:

Click to Enlarge
The theory predicts a clear divergence between global cooling from the sun's quiescence versus the global warming claimed by the IPCC. Within a decade it should be utterly obvious which of these two theories fits the facts best:

Click to Enlarge
As for the "science being settled" on global warming, here is a bit from a statement by Bill Gray of the AMS:

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Guest post by Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University (AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)

I am very disappointed at the downward path the AMS has been following for the last 10-15 years in its advocacy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. The society has officially taken a position many of us AMS members do not agree with. We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCMs) results and the four IPCC reports do not realistically give accurate future projections. To take this position which so many of its members do not necessarily agree with shows that the AMS is following more of a political than a scientific agenda.

...

Prediction. The AMS is going to be judged in future years as having foolishly sacrificed its sterling scientific reputation for political and financial expediency. I am sure that hundreds of our older deceased AMS members are rolling in their graves over what has become of their and our great society.

If you read the whole statement, you will see detailed criticisms of how the "global warming" crowd has hijacked this scientific organization.

More details on Bill Gray at Wikipedia.