Is the Sun Starting to Cool?

Question

The respected Russian Scientist Habibullo Abdusamatov made this statement regarding so-called "Global Warming" -

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

Now that global temperatures are falling worldwide, did this Russian scientist get climate prediction right? Is the Sun cooling down as Abdusamatov said it would, and are now heading for the freeze that he foresaw?

How come NASA wasn't able to get this correct? Did NASA write the conclusion first, then find the data to fit what they wanted to believe?

Answer 1

Wow... your questions are even funnier than your answers...

I am not sure that you can put 'Habibullo Abdusamatov' and  'respected Russian Scientist' in the same sentence unless you also include the words 'not very'.

  I am not actually sure what your question is because there are so many question marks.... you crafty little devil, is this a plan so that if I don't answer correctly you can report me...?

Q) Is the Sun Starting to Cool? A)Possibly

Q)Now that global temperatures are falling worldwide, did this Russian scientist get climate prediction right?  A)I am not sure temps are falling so this question does not make sense. You will have to post further proof. But my answer is No.

Q) Is the Sun cooling down as Abdusamatov said it would, and are now heading for the freeze that he foresaw? A) this does not make any sense and is grammatically incorrect so I can not answer it.

Q)How come NASA wasn't able to get this correct? A)I think NASA have also studied this http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/...  etc etc. there are heaps more sites.

Q)Did NASA write the conclusion first, then find the data to fit what they wanted to believe? A) I think that they are slightly more scientific than you presume.

Answer 2

I'll give the Rusky credit, we don't have to wait 20+ years to see if his prognostications will become evident.

In any event it's all spheromancy.

Answer 3

NASA has been claimed not to be correct by one of the deniers who misrepresents the upper bound "scenario C" as if that had been what NASA had forecasted.

The person who did that in front of Congress is way too smart to have done so by accident.  Why do you suppose people would feel the need to intentionally misrepresent?  Perhaps they can find no viable data with which to make their point?  Apparently you're having the same trouble (no supporting data)?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_rea...

"The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change. The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species (see “Dangerous”, “Trace Gases”, and “Gorilla” papers).

Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation, passing on to our children, grandchildren, and the unborn a situation out of their control, the contrarians who work to deny and confuse will not be the principal culprits. The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point to joust with court jesters. They will always be present. They will continue to entertain even if the Titanic begins to take on water. Their role and consequence is only as a diversion from what is important."

Answer 4

From what I have read in books on climatology, sun spots or the lack of them in this case have a lot to do with cooling weather. But also, ultimately, the sun will not burn out, but heat up in intensity. This will take millions and millions of years, but by that time most, if not all, species will no longer exist.

Answer 5

I hope not becasue then we would all freeze the sun is the only source of warming on the planet.

Answer 6

A male and female rat on a completely non populated Acre of land fully capable of sustaining life.  The end result is extinction.

Answer 7

That scientist is woefully out of touch with reality. Global temperatures have been rising and the sun has a few billion years left before it gets too frosty here on earth.

Answer 8

Yes the SUN is definitely cooling according to the IRMB composite and PMOD composite.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi...

But the most important climate signal that is currently sounding the alarm that most "so called scientists...." are ignoring, is the extended lack of sunspot activity that we know correlates very well with climatic change.

http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html

.

.

Answer 9

He's an astrophysicist who knows little about climatology. To him, the Sun is the most important thing, no matter what the data says.

The reality is that solar irradiance has not increased during recent decades.

There's a great, detailed, cited response to this question from another YA answerer here:

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/fro...

Answer 10

Respected by who?   Apparently he's not respected by the Russian Academy of Sciences, since they (along with 12 other National Academy of Sciences) signed a letter last year to world leaders saying:

[QUOTE]

Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions. It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

[END QUOTE]

http://www.nationalacademies.org/include...

It's a good thing science doesn't operate the way you think it should.  The scientific community is far too cautious (not to mention wise) to simply throw out years of research evidence just because some scientist in Russia publishes a different opinion.

Answer 11

Don't you love that as soon as you mention a scientist that is not in the IPCC, all the zealots start crying that he is not reputable or is hired by big oil. We all know that in order to be a "real" scientist you have to be hired by a huge  multi-governmental bureaucratic agency.

Answer 12

we are at a solar cycle minimum and just experienced the 2nd warmest year on record - solar cycle 24 could be larger than the one we just left and peak in 2012.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/...

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24...

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24...

edit

i'll take NASA over reuters (or any media outlet) anyday:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/2...

especially regarding the year 2007 when the NASA webpage is dated in 2008 instead of reauters nov 2007 date.....

Answer 13

I wish you had provided a link but I can look it up.This is really not a new theory I was taught this concept in the fourth grade 30yrs ago.However the sun or sol does gather energy/mass at times,that is on occasion hydrogen clouds do pass by with other objects..I also refrain from listing sunspots as a plausible discrepancy because they are unpredictable.

Answer 14

There are a plethora of solar cycles that are going on.  We only really fully understand one of them, and that is the 11 year sunspot cycle.  

There are 2 other big cycles, one lasting 88 years, and one lasting roughly 200 years.  The cycles by themselves dont cause much of a change, but when they are coupled, or spaced evenly, there are effects in the weather seen.  This was in a peer reviewed journal entry I believe.  I included it in a paper I wrote.  It was also used as a reference in the book "Unstoppable global warming: every 1500 years" by Singer and Avery.  

The problem is not many people have access to peer reviewed journals.  I can get them online through my university, and I am amazed by the amount of peer-reviewed articles regarding solar cycles and their effect on global climate.

NASA is losing credibility with me slowly.  People keep posting links to articles about NASA's prediction of the next solar cycle.  I see the articles predict a stronger cycle.. which is odd because a year ago when I wrote that paper, I cited a NASA article that said they had evidence that solar cycle 24 will actually be quite weak.  They based it on the fact that the convection cycles were slowing slightly, as part of one of the longer cycles.

Answer 15

Data please to back your claim that temperatures are falling worldwide (other than showing that it´s still wintertime in the N.H.)

Answer 16

I really don't know if the Earth's climate is warming or cooling..... neither do the climate 'experts'.  Until we get reliable data..... it will be hard to determine.

Answer 17

Where is your DATA? You have taken a news item (and we all know how wrong the media is most of the time) and not backed it up with any real DATA. The source is my DATA.

The source says the output of the Sun is not going down. It does show an 11 year up and down cycle correlated with sunspot activity, but the variability is only about 0.1% and does not trend up or down when you look at several cycles.

(EDIT) OK, I have 3 thumbs up and 3 down so far. I assume the 3 down are because the data in my source ends too early. Here is a second source with more recent data. And google can find many more, if you bother to look.

Answer 18

The only thing starting to cool is your argument.

Answer 19

I thought the sun burned at the same temperature all the time. Is this not the case? I have been told the sun has no influence on the temp on Earth.  The sun has sun spots which makes the output of the sun cooler from time to time so get cranking on those green house gases before it it too late.  i do not want to live in TN if it has the same weather pattern as MN.

Answer 20

Temperatures are falling worldwide are they? Where's your data to support that statement?

Answer 21

"The respected Russian Scientist Habibullo Abdusamatov"

You are kidding right, this guy is a joke he suggests there is a lag of 35 years between a drop in solar output and the effect on Earth this isn't even good basic physics. it takes 8 min for the energy of the Sun to reach the Earth the Sun is our only source of heat any drop in energy from the Sun would be felt immediately, no 35 year gap.

Depending on were you are on Earth the night side can lose 10-20c to space (even more in deserts) in one night, till the Sun warms things up again.

Answer 22

Al Gore made a moutain out of a mole hill ..global cooling

Answer 23

The sun goes through normal, almost regular cycles, that much is a fact.  It's the hottest object in our solar system, 93 million miles away it IS the largest contributor of earths warmth bar none.  (also a fact)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_varia...

We've been in the Modern Maximum since 1950, I expect the solar activity to die down as well.  What goes up, must come down.  Of course, we cannot predict what the sun will do, we can only record what it is doing and correlate that to the current weather cycles.