Time for an update. This thread started March 6th 2009: Mini Ice age coming? or about here already? NASA / NOAA / NSO / ... et al suspect so. ___ In early 2009 I wrote to NASA/NOAA pointing out that they were fudging th= e data on their sunspot charts and hiding the fact that sunspot progression levels were far below officially predicted levels and becoming increasingly so with time. (They were moving the "prediction" curve each month to "track= " the data). I imagine that I wasn't telling them anything they didn't know. What it did tell them was that an increasing number of people were noticing what they were doing. .. I was gratified to receive an email reply with an internal comment attache= d which showed that other people had noticed and were also "commenting". "Here's another one of those emails." :-) The actual reply was essentially contentless. Back then the indications were that we were moving into a period of declining solar sunspot maxima with a cycle shape quite unlike anything seen for hundreds of years. This was well known to researchers in the field but very little public mention was made. (There seemed to be a "pull out, pull out" hope and expec= t ion that the sun would 'come through' but it didn't happen). So, for about = 2 years after that the official line was "business as usual", but now all major agencies are noting that we seem to be heading into a period of extremely low sunspot activity with :Maunder minimum" and "Dalton minimum" and "little Ice Age" being increasingly heard in more mainstream scientifi= c circles. Note that it is NOT at all certain that if the progression continues that w= e will experience the extremely low winter temperatures of the Maunder minimu= m The correlation between solar activity and terra-temperatures (ie us) is tenuous and not well understood. So much so that the received and frequentl= y repeated truth for the last decade is that "solar variations are small and do not have a major effect on earth's temperature". That perception seems t= o be fading away, whether incorrectly or not. Reasonably worst case we are in for a decade or few of REALLY cold winters = - on a scale not seen in living memory. Unreasonably worst case this is the start of the long overdue next true ice age, which "was due to start" around the time of Christ. We can hope not. There are various populist and scientific sites proclaiming the new truth. While most of the following are from sites with an anti-global-warming bias= , the new perspectives are being noted by all major atmospheric agencies. Useful. Somewhat scary http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11516/Geologist-Dr-Don-Easterbrook-My-cooling= -prediction-seems-to-be-coming-to-pass-with-no-global-warming-above-the-199= 8-temperatures-and-a-gradually-deepening-cooling-since-then On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710, 2010 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2= 010.pdf Annoying video, but some information http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11513/Watch-Now-Weather-Channel-Founder--Mete= orologist-John-Coleman-on-the-Quiet-Sun NASA scientist prepared to admit his prior predictions were (probably) wron= g http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11519/NASA-scientist-reverses-sunspot-predict= ion-bolstering-global-cooling-theory Useful. Biased http://www.climatedepot.com/r/11515/Warmist-Joe-Romm-If-the-sun-goes-into-h= ibernation-it-wont-stop-global-warming NB: Note that none of this addresses the core Global Warming premises. If anthropogenic GW is occurring it may well continue throughout a little, or big, ice age but the effects may be swamped by the solar effects. Russell On 6 March 2009 00:23, Russell McMahon wrote: > The sun continues to behave in ways not seen in modern scientific history= .. > Nobody interested in such things says nowt. > > Now the guardians have started moving the goalposts. > > Latest sunspot figures still have the sunspot activity at historically lo= w > levels (about non existent) and the new cycle refusing to start - now > arguably 1 year + late and no sign. > > http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/**SolarCycle/ > > /CONSPIRACY THEORY - THE CATCHER IN THE RYE/NOAA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW > THAT THE SUN HAS GONE OUT* AND HAVE STARTED FUDGING THEIR GRAPHS. > / No Change. > > An interesting thing is that NOAA suddenly started fudging part of their > graphs! - it seems they don't want people to know that the current result= s > are far far outside projections. > Up until December's data (published early January) the prediction high/lo= w > bounds were plotted. A reference was given to another page where the basi= s > of the predictions was discussed. The reference is unchanged and the page= of > explanations is unchanged BUT the bounds curves suddenly jumped sideways > about 5 months on the January graph. The graphs are usually updated a few > days into the following month.BUT the January data didn't appear until ab= out > 3 weeks into February - something I've not seen before. And, when the gra= phs > did appear they had the shifted bounds. > > SO I emailed the NOAA space prediction people and was told that from now = on > they would just be shifting the curve arbitrarily sideways to suit how > things looked. I asked about the discussion on the related page but they > didn't comment. > > So I sent them a more detailed comment and pointed out that the old curve= s > were of some use, but the new curves had no basis in fact, even though th= e > page said that they did. After several days with no comment on this I sen= t a > comment to another higher/different NOAA email address gained from their > contact page, pointing out the 'problems". No response yet. I wait with > eager anticipation their ongoing forays into new science. > > __________ > > EVEN WORSE CONSPIRACY THEORY. > This is more towards SciFi / Nature is ganging up on us. > Doesn't mean it may not be true ;-). > > * yeah. I know. Of course it hasn't gone out. probably. :-). But it sure = is > acting weird like. Some other indicators are showing increasing signs of > anomalous behaviour. Others seem fairy constant. > > Maybe it's time to start digging a bunker underneath my swimming pool? I > wonder what the price of lead is like these days? > > I ... > > Really though - best outlandish guess seems to be a trend towards > continuing low activity with a consequent fall in solar field > rise in > celestial incoming gamma rays > increased atmospheric aerosols > aerosol= s > > more clouds > higher albedo > more cooling > global cooling. Good fun the= ory > anyway. Should see a trend within a year or few at this rate. Stay tuned. > > Sequester your carbon while ye may. If things happen as they may, althoug= h > it does seem outlandishly unlikely, 10 or so years from now you'll be abl= e > to get credits for burning carbon. > > Hopefully, the fact that the next iceage was statistically and historical= ly > due at about the time of Christ's nativity, and is now about 2000 years > overdue, has got nothing to do with things. Some suggest that the Roman's > saved us all, with their localised spurt of industry and CO2 giving the > about to flip system enough of a kick to keep it stable for about another > 2000 years or so - so far, anyway :-). While some people would love to se= e > thousands of feet of ice on NY, I feel that a need for me to move to, say= , > Northern Australia, would be very sad. Bali may not be quite so bad. > > > Russell > 6 Feb 2009 > Remember who told you first. > Forget it all if I prove to be wrong :-) > > > > > _________________________ > > 1st email to NOAA SWPC: > > > NOAA > Space Weather Prediction Centre. > > > Your web page http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/**SolarCycle/ > shows the ongoing "ISES Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression", and > includes prediction bounds. > It is intimated on this page that the prediction bounds are based on the > May 2 2008 prediction update. [This is not actually absolutely stated but > this is the very clear conclusion liable to be drawn by anyone who would = be > interested in looking at this page.] > > Your page http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/**SolarCycle/SC24/index.htmlexplains the basis of the May 2 = 2008 predictions. > > Up until the December 31st graph update the prediction curves have remain= ed > consistent for some months, apart from predictions prior to the current d= ate > being removed. [I personally think that leaving the prior prediction curv= es > in place would be useful, but that's not what I'm writing about.] > > On the January 31st graph update (altered on February 24th) the predictio= n > curves appear to have been have been time shifted 'right' by about 5 mont= hs* > but the claimed prediction dates have not altered and the prediction page > has not changed. > > You may wish to either move the prediction curves back to their prior > location or, if the basis of prediction has in fact changed, update the > prediction note on the graph and the data on the prediction page. > > > regards > > > Russell McMahon > New Zealand. > > * Based solely on visual inspection the curves appear to be slightly > different in shape than previously and may represent a whole new set of > predictions. The much longer than usual delay in publishing the prior > month's data suggests that major changes may have been made. > > > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .