Aug 15

Statistician Dr. Richard Mackey, who authored a 2007 peer-reviewed study which found that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate, writes in a guest essay at Climate Depot:

Astronomers Dr. William Livingston and Dr. Matthew Penn and a large number of solar physicists would say that now the likelihood of the Earth being seized by Maunder Minimum is now greater than the Earth being seized by a period of global warming.

Their central finding is that regardless of the relation to the sunspot cycles, magnetic intensity in sunspots is decreasing and if this continues in the same way as it has for the last 15 years, the Sun will be devoid of sunspots in five years time: overall the Sun’s energetic output will decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth.

They would answer Sir John’s question by saying: “Yes, the Maunder Minimum will arrive in time to save the planet from the utterly foolish global carbon tax.”

I’m obviously not a man-made global warming alarmist, but I’m also not a global cooling alarmist. If I could choose one or the other I’m not sure what I’d pick. Let’s take a look at the options:

1. Man-made global warming is real, Dr Livingston and Dr. Penn are wrong, and there the predicted global cooling doesn’t pan out:

In this scenario, the weather would get gradually warmer, crop yields would increase, and there would be likely be more positive effects of a warming planet than negative. But, the effects of cap and trade and other “solutions” would result in loss of individual liberties, and destruction of the world’s economy.

2. Man-made global warming is wrong, and a new Maunder Minimum brings the dawn of a new Little Ice Age:

In this scenario, the cooling planet would convince the population that Al Gore is just plain nuts, putting the kibosh on the global warming alarmists “solutions”. The result would be retention of our individual liberties and economic freedom that would create more wealth for all. But, a new Little Ice Age would be disastrous for food production, and would likely lead to widespread hunger, and perhaps starvation. Also, skyrocketing heating costs would also devastate the economy.

So, both choices are clear losers. But, we don’t have a choice in the matter anyway. It’s que sera, sera.

2 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


4 Responses to “Astronomers: ‘Sun’s output may decline significantly inducing another little ice age on the Earth’”

  1. Wayne Justice says:

    Man made global warming appears to be insignificant but not to be confused with man made global environmental degradation in other ways. We are presently in a repeat Dalton minimum due to the shift of the gravitational center of the solar system outside the sphere of the Sun. This now routes the Oort Cloud and Kioper Belt debris away from falling into the Sun, hence reduced sunspots. This minimum may persist until about 2020 or longer or it may morph into a new Maunder minimum if the sunspots wink out completely around 2016..

    We now know that CO2 is not a major atmospheric warmer as claimed by the global cooling deniers. See referenced article below. The opening conclusions of the paper speak for themselves.

    Carbon Cycle Modelling and the Residence Time of Natural and Anthropogenic Atmospheric CO2: on the Construction of the”Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” Dogma.

    Tom V. Segalstad Mineralogical-Geological Museum University of Oslo
    Sars’ Gate 1, N-0562 Oslo Norway


    The three evidences of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the apparent contemporary atmospheric CO2 increase is anthropogenic, is discussed and rejected: CO2 measurements from ice cores; CO2 measurements in air; and carbon isotope data in conjunction with carbon cycle modelling.

    It is shown why the ice core method and its results must be rejected; and that current air CO2 measurements are not validated and their results subjectively “edited”. Further it is shown that carbon cycle modelling based on non-equilibrium models, remote from observed reality and chemical laws, made to fit non-representative data through the use of non-linear ocean evasion “buffer” correction factors constructed from a pre-conceived idea, constitute a circular argument and with no scientific validity.

    Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth’s interior.

    The apparent annual atmospheric CO2 level increase, postulated to be anthropogenic, would constitute only some 0.2% of the total annual amount of CO2 exchanged naturally between the atmosphere and the ocean plus other natural sources and sinks. It is more probable that such a small ripple in the annual natural flow of CO2 would be caused by natural fluctuations of geophysical processes.

    13-C/12-C isotope mass balance calculations show that IPCC’s atmospheric residence time of 50-200 years make the atmosphere too light (50% of its current CO2 mass) to fit its measured 13-C/12-C isotope ratio. This proves why IPCC’s wrong model creates its artificial 50% “missing sink”. IPCC’s 50% inexplicable “missing sink” of about 3 giga-tonnes carbon annually should have led all governments to reject IPCC’s model. When such rejection has not yet occurred, it beautifully shows the result of the “scare-them-to-death” influence principle.

    IPCC’s “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda “pop” as we know it.


preload preload preload