Russ Steele
David Rose writes in the UK Daily Mail that we need to forget about global warming and worry about Solar Cycle 25. The UK Met office has released new figures showing no global warming for the last 15 years.
. . . leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.
Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.
We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.
Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.
According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C. [My emphasis added]
However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. [My emphasis added]
Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’
These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.
‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.
You can read the rest of the article HERE. In the past when the sunspots declined or vanished, the earth got colder. The scientific evidence indicated that sunspots are declining and they may disappear. Stay Tuned.
The Next Grand Minimum 
According to today’s Daily Mail London is bracing for snow and hard freezes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094230/UK-weather-London-braced-snow-Britain-shivers-temperatures-low-11.html#ixzz1lAb2W5tM
LOL, hello Warmers?
That the solar minimum, especially a Maunder repeat, would have little effect due to offset by increases in atmospheric CO2 is very doubtful. CO2 has not been shown to be a viable or notable climate driver. If it were, we would be seeing a much greater increase in global warming.
Temperature is not the correct measure for climate change. Rather, the actual amount of energy is a better measure. An area with higher temps ( less humidity) may contain less energy than a colder area (with higher humidity). So, the warmists science is dubious claiming increasing temps and hotter years. Just dots on a graph. It’s the buildup of additional energy that is important.