Phil Chapman an Aust geophysicist has noted extremely low sun spot activity lately and both sea and air temps have fallen.We have had a dramatic fall of 0.7 deg C in just 12 mnths.

In the past 1000 yrs we have 3 mini ice ages.1650,1750,1850.In both the Dalton and Maunder minima sun spot acivity was recorded as being low.The Maunder minimum of 1750 was the most bitter time of the little ice age which co-incided with the lowest records of sun spot activity.The pop of Iceland fell by half.Europe suffered it's most bitter winters but the pop could migrate further south.

If the trends of low sun spot acivity continue,Chapman and others are suggesting a new mini ice age by mid century.This will be far more catastrophic than Global warming scenarios.With the world's 9 billion people there will be mass migration to the warmer parts of the planet.Food and energy shortages will further exacerbate the dilemma.

In reality over population is the main source of our woes and rather than trading in dubious carbon credits,we should be trading in infertile credits.

What a joke it is to base a whole system trading carbon credits, based on at best,dubious science.The left have used AGW to perpetuate their socialistic philosophies. We are not sure if we have the hot flushes,or are getting the cold shoulder.

Perhaps we just should do some trading in common sense.It costs nothing and can be very constructive.

It is very true about over-population. Now that China and other developing nations are inheriting the consumption society, I think it's going to become acutely painful and unwise to ignore and address. Look to Catholics and the like first. They breed like disease-ridden vermin.

Infertile credits! It's an idea but only a joke. Only bringing about populations of educated, earning women with full rights under the law will lower the birthrate and thereby carbon consumption.

Yeah Arjay, I read that piece by Chapman too.

This is what Professor David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne and Member, Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, had to say about it:

“It is excellent to have well-informed opinion pieces published in our newspapers. It is a pity when opinion pieces contain significant errors or misleading information, and then draw mischievous conclusions from them. The opinion piece written by Phil Chapman in The Australian on 23 April appears to contain a number of factual errors, misleading statements and incorrect conclusions.”

His full response can be found here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/the_australians_war_on_science_12.php#more

I see you elude to the ideological mantra of left vs right, us vs them, etc. Not that you are wrong mind you, this is exactly what is happening and as history has shown, the cause of many of societal problems.

FWIW, if humanity (as a whole) can focus more on sustainable development of its resources, many environmental problems (including those associated with global warming) can be overcome.

As to the burgeoning world population with limited resources, this is a real problem.
Educated and so called ‘developed’ societies don’t seem to have such population pressures (the reverse in fact) but what are the ‘educated and developed societies’ doing to help in this regard – consume more and more stuff/energy and as a result exacerbating the pressures on natural resources – way to go? I don’t think so.

Yes, a complex issue.
And don’t get me started on the role of religion in the population debate.

Arjay; You post was a bit too simplistic.
The sunspot cycle is an 11 year cycle although if you take into
account the polarity of the sunspots it is a 22 year cycle.

We are currently at a minimum and I cannot remember a time when
radio propagation has been so bad on the HF bands.
Even previous minima were better than the present.
This may well be the cause of big drop in temperature 0.7 degree last
year. However it is a long bow to use this to refer to the Maundie
cold period as it was a lot longer than 11 or 22 years.

What has been pointed out is that the length of cycle itself varies
by +- a year and that might be a cause of warming and cooling.

Now that is something that has been studied but I think the jury
is still out on that one.
Lets face it the sun can blow fuses here on earth, so for it to
cause global warming & cooling seems very likely.

Bazz (and Arjay)

The solar output has been monitored by accurate satellite instruments since 1978. Measured peak to trough over the 11 year solar cycle, averaging over the Earth's surface and allowing for albedo, the radiative forcing amplitude is under 0.2 W/m2.

This is significantly less than the 2 W/m2 of radiative forcing arising from long-lived greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere wrt global industrialisation and poor land management practices.

There is nothing in climate physics to suggest that the sensitivity of climate to solar irradiance variation differs substantially from the sensitivity to infrared radiative forcing arising from greenhouse gas changes.

As far as the climate cares, a Watt is a Watt, regardless of whether it comes from changes in the incoming solar energy or greenhouse-induced changes in the infrared radiation loss.

To get a ‘bigger bang’ out of solar variability, one needs to invoke something else about the way the Sun affects climate, something like magnetic field variations or Cosmic Ray Flux .

Bazz, if by saying the “jury is still out” means some fine work is done in these fields … yes, this is true. BUT the researchers have NOT been able to explain the warming we have been experiencing when GHGe are taken out of the scenario equations AND they have NOT been able to increase the Sun’s watts in any appreciable way when GHGe are left in.

Sure, over the geological time (millions of years) Earth’s climate is influenced by the Sun (cf: Milankovitch Cycles and the Earth’s tilting orbit) and in the distant future we will have another ice-age … but not in the time frame Chapman alludes to.

We must understand the ‘rate of change’ of this latest ‘climate change’ cannot be explained by natural forcings alone.