# Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

Which of the IPCC Scenarios do you think we should be using?

(based on public awareness, attitudes, likely fuel sources, population growth, technology improvement, (cleaner and more resource efficient maybe?) human efforts to reduce the effect , coordinated global effort etc)...  

Note , you'll have to do some reading of the websites for this one - most of which I have pasted below

I suspect you could ask this as :-
*"how ecologically friendly, frugal, fossil-fuel-dependant, and coordinated in our efforts do you see "mankind-en-masse" being in the (near) future and for the rest of the 21st century?" *

Best estimate for Surface air warming in the 21st century: 
B1...........1.8deg
A1T............2.4degC
B2..............2.4degC
A1B................2.8degC
A2.....................3.4degC
A1F1..........................4.0degC


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


> The Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) was a report prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, on future emission scenarios to be used for driving global circulation models to develop climate change scenarios. It was used to replace the IS92 scenarios used for the IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995. The SRES Scenarios were also used for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007.
> 
> The six families of scenarios discussed in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (TAR) and Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are A1FI, A1B, A1T, A2, B1, and B2.
> 
> Scenario descriptions are based on those in AR4, which are identical to those in TAR. [1]






> A1F1
> The A1 scenarios are of a more integrated world. The A1 family of scenarios is characterized by:
> 
> Rapid economic growth.
> ...






> A1B - ditto , but with A balanced emphasis on all energy sources.






> A1T - ditto, but with Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources.






> A2
> The A2 scenarios are of a more divided world. The A2 family of scenarios is characterized by:
> 
> A world of independently operating, self-reliant nations.
> ...





> B1
> The B1 scenarios are of a world more integrated, and more ecologically friendly. The B1 scenarios are characterized by:
> 
> Rapid economic growth as in A1, but with rapid changes towards a service and information economy.
> ...





> B2
> The B2 scenarios are of a world more divided, but more ecologically friendly. The B2 scenarios are characterized by:
> 
> Continuously increasing population, but at a slower rate than in A2.
> ...




Incidentally Estimates of temp increase and rise in sea level are as follows (21st century):-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report



> Temperature and sea level rise for each SRES scenario family
> There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family for the 21st century.
> 
> 1. Scenario B1
> ...




Note that those rises in sea level have been "upgraded" since.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

> I suspect you could ask this as :-
> "how ecologically friendly, frugal, fossil-fuel-dependant, and coordinated in our efforts do you see "mankind-en-masse" being in the (near) future and for the rest of the 21st century?"




and (I guess) effective or otherwise even if we do act (one for the sceptics)


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2008)

Whichever scenario results from us burning everything we can get our hands on.

I'd be highly surprised if by the end of this century we hadn't burnt essentially all the conventional oil and natural gas (already done a bit over a half and a quarter respectively) and most of the coal too. Plus quite bit of unconventional fossil fuels - tar sands, methane hydrates etc.

IMO the debate is not seriously about how much CO2 we will ultimately add to the air. Nor is it about when in any meaningful sense - a few years here or there won't make much difference. It's about who adds it and from what use as far as I'm concerned.

The more I've studied the topic over the past 20 years, the more convinced I've become that we'll collectively (globally) burn the whole lot as fast as we can get it out of the ground. Sad but I think that's what's going to happen without a very major shift in global politics, religion etc which is unlikely until there is an actual catastrophy or massive evidence that it's imminent - but then it's too late.

The only real thing that might change IMO is if peak oil or some other factor causes enough economic problems that we also end up using less gas and coal. Possible though we're talking about a pretty serious economic collapse here and not just a recession. Even then we'll try and burn our way out of it until we can't (because there's nothing left to burn).


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Whichever scenario results from us burning everything we can get our hands on.
> 
> 2. I'd be highly surprised if by the end of this century we hadn't burnt essentially all the conventional oil and natural gas (already done a bit over a half and a quarter respectively) and most of the coal too. Plus quite bit of unconventional fossil fuels - tar sands, methane hydrates etc.
> 
> ...



brilliant post Smurf. (imho lol)
gotta be worth at least :4 twocents 


I agree those scenarios are a bit confusing at first sight.  
IPCC = Institute for Pointing out Cataclismic Conseqences?
IPCC = Institute for Promoting Climatic Caution?
IPCC = Institute for Pushing Complete Confusion? lol - 

1. "whichever assumes burn burn who cares".
My guess is that's somewhere south of A1F1  - except that when the fossil fuels run out , then voila, problem turns around (for those still around).  This is the only subcategory that specifically mentions continued fossil fuel use/abuse.   
They don't give you an A2F1 option for example, which would be worse obviusly. 

Just discussing and trying to understand those categories....

the B's are "best" options (at risk of confusing even more) - 
more ecologically friendly than the A's 
integrated world wide plan (B1), or more local and uncoordinated (B2), arguably half or 3/4 hearted

population magically halts at 9 billion (B1) or keeps growing (B2) 

reductions in "material intensity" (and hence economic devt??) (B1), or "intermediate economic devt" (B2), arguably half or 3/4 hearted (B2)

emphasis on clean technolgies (B1),  arguably half or 3/4 hearted (B2)

...........
Then for the A's - the same except less green mean approach.   Now A1,  like B1, assumes an integrated world wide plan, but (compared to B1) no real change in direction of economic growth.  The same assumptions 

coordinated (A1) and uncoordinated (A2), arguably 1/4 or half hearted (?)

population magically halts at 9 billion (A1) or keeps growing (A2) - even more rapid than B2

reductions in "material intensity" (i.e. "more convergent" economic devt) (A1), or "more selfish" (B2), arguably 1/4 or half hearted (A2)


Plus subcategories for A1 (? why not for each and every).
A1FI - An emphasis on fossil-fuels. 
A1B - A balanced emphasis on all energy sources. 
A1T - Emphasis on non-fossil energy sources


2. "I'd be highly surprised if by the end of this century we hadn't burnt essentially all the conventional oil and natural gas"...
unless we wake up to ourselves.  But it surely means we MUST go nuclear eventually - whether 2050 or 2100 or whatever.   

3. I'd say , since we are hotter today than yesterday - and the yesterday before that, then do something now today (so that tomorrow we will have a tomorrow? and another tomorrow after that?) 

4. "It's about who adds it and from what use as far as I'm concerned." spot on!!  While the third world dies in their deserts, and the islands get flooded, We argue about whether we are entitled to set air conditioned "controlled environs" in our massive shopping malls at (if anything) too cold  - should be legislated try 29 degC (just hooking into the "temperate twenties" - or turn em off imo. 

5. "or massive evidence that it's imminent" - surely we are there !

6. "but then it's too late"  yep, but better late than baked.

7. shift in economic thinking you reckon? 

8. "Possible though we're talking about a pretty serious economic collapse here and not just a recession." - probably true, different direction doesn't have to mean nothing to sell imo.  Stern report more upbeat about the effects of changing direction - in fact pointing out the economic folly of NOT doing so etc.    

9. "Even then we'll try and burn our way out of it until we can't (because there's nothing left to burn)." - I suspect you're right . (especially USA - no one tells them what to do!)

Thanks m8. 
As I say - I reckon your scenario qualifies as A1F1 - but much worse.  A2F1?  5degC?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

Think I'm right here, but this is what the graph would look like - approx for A2 (3.4deg C for the century)  - just to put such rises into perspective


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and (I guess) effective or otherwise even if we do act (one for the sceptics)




For those of us not into doom and gloom, or burn n squirm, from the postings, what does IPCC stand for?

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata.html

Hadley Centre (=UK Met bureau) projections..based on scenario A1B  = "This is a 'business as usual' scenario, which assumes mid-range economic growth but no measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions." 

(??Wiki calls A1B balanced between fossil and clean power (?)  - hardly call that "no measures" !! - whatever)

Hopefully we will intervene and do better than A1B. (?) 



> Climate change projections
> Key results from climate-change experiments conducted using Hadley Centre computer models of the climate system. The experiments assume that future emissions of greenhouse gases will follow the IS92a scenario, in which the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide more than doubles over the course of the 21st century. *This is a 'business as usual' scenario, which assumes mid-range economic growth but no measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. *
> 
> It is important to be aware that predictions from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different predictions.
> ...




If you click on the map of the world it passes through the century with temp effects.

btw bright red on that graph  = +15degC from 2000 I think


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> For those of us not into doom and gloom, or burn n squirm, from the postings, what does IPCC stand for?
> 
> gg



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

Thanks for that gg - at last I found an easy table that shows those scenarios


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2008)

Thanks.

I've voted bang in the centre, so far its a normal distribution. People are averse to bad predictions. I do know the Antarctic is supporting less ice than in the past. Global temperature is a difficult one to predict. Any statisticians in the thread?

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
IPCC's 4th report (2007)


----------



## Gundini (12 January 2008)

2020, unbelievable thread, and info/pics/data, it's a credit to you. 

Just one question!

What's the question again?


----------



## wayneL (12 January 2008)

Weather is a chaotic system (in the physics sense). Even a negative result is possible. 

BTW, why isn't the most important GW gas ever mentioned?


----------



## visual (12 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Think I'm right here, but this is what the graph would look like - approx for A2 (3.4deg C for the century)  - just to put such rises into perspective




One question what caused the warm age and the mini ice age? 
Today the blame goes to burning oil and coal  but in medieval times what was the cause and then what caused the mini ice age?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 January 2008)

Gundini 
Well, when it comes to predicting what the temp will be in 2100
It is necessary to make some assumptions about what will be done to coordinate man's efforts internationally, will there be an economic or environmental emphasis, what will the population be etc ....

Hence there are various scenarios in the IPCC report. 

btw, here is the graph of world temp for the last 3000 years.  (approx only)
and what would happen if it went up 3.4degC for instance (scenario A2).   

The "more median" option (A1B) is only 2.8degC, but still pretty serious yes?

To me that suggests that we should check it out .... to the best of our ability....  and change our ways bigtime if necessary.  

Perhaps in the course of each of us researching those scenarios we will be better equipt to decide on GW issues 

Note the blue line for A1F1 - my guess is the only reason it changes direction is that we run out of fossil fuels - could be the only thing that saves a fraction of the species on earth - and us (as Smurf alluded to) 

the coloured graph is from the IPCC report - the other I just found somewhere (and very approx for 2007 temp, post hockey-stick)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

PS I have revised the 3000 year graph downward - no need to risk being accused of exaggeration


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Weather is a chaotic system (in the physics sense). Even a negative result is possible.
> 
> BTW, why isn't the most important GW gas ever mentioned?



well that IPCC report mentions most gases (anthropo-thingo)
- in terms of CO2equivalent.


----------



## wayneL (13 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well that IPCC report mentions most gases (anthropo-thingo)
> - in terms of CO2equivalent.




Exposes IPCC intentional muppetry.

The most important GW gas is H2O vapour.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

visual said:


> One question what caused the warm age and the mini ice age?
> Today the blame goes to burning oil and coal  but in medieval times what was the cause and then what caused the mini ice age?



visual,
There are other parameters which affect the earth's temperature.  Solar actvity (heats), volcanic dust (cools) etc.  btw, future contributions of all known parameters - with best guess on their trends - have allegedly been taken into account in predicting into the future.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Exposes IPCC intentional muppetry.
> 
> The most important GW gas is H2O vapour.



again wayne, play riddles if you wish 
not much we can do about water vapour. 
(that graph was anthropogenic) 

but short of drinking less confused I'd prefer to do what you do - and act on the co2 and other pollutants. 
plus, btw, vote for people who will take it to the international community.


----------



## wayneL (13 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> again wayne, play riddles if you wish
> not much we can do about water vapour.
> (that graph was anthropogenic)
> 
> ...




Riddles? **** me! It's a huge part of the whole climate equation and goes to the total effect of other gases.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Riddles? **** me! It's a huge part of the whole climate equation and goes to the total effect of other gases.




sure - any large molecules - H-O-H,  O-C-O , CH4, etc cause ghg effect.
where O2 doesn't for instance. 

- so what are you planning to do about water vapour. ?
I mean what's your point here?


----------



## wayneL (13 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> sure - any large molecules - H-O-H,  O-C-O , CH4, etc cause ghg effect.
> where O2 doesn't for instance.
> 
> - so what are you planning to do about water vapour. ?
> I mean what's your point here?



The point is about butterfly wings, hurricanes, and chaos... and the futility of guessing which guess a committee full of VIs guessed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

The effect of water vapour - are they aware of it? 
- the third point on that blue jpeg back on post #8 is that "water vapour is increasing" - so I think you can safely assume that people like the UK Met office (who claim to know what they're doing with weather forecasting) have built into their models the fact that water vapour is relevant to the final greenhouse effects.  

Think I noticed there in their report that methane CH4 turns to water vapour in the stratosphere - so I think we can rest assured that they're onto it.  

The starting point for this thread?
I guess you could argue that this thread concentrates on the six main IPCC options (albeit the freedom to choose "other") as the starting point.  THESE ARE OPTIONS ON HOW MEN (en masse and in their 21st century numbers  )  WILL BEHAVE.  *These are options / guesses if you like on how coordinated and green we will be in our approach to this alleged "problem" - and that would apply for real or imaginary*.  Will the USA become better environmental citizens of the world for example - or continue as selfish environmental vandals raping the planet of resources? etc.

The accuracy of their predictions?  
They (IPCC) seem pretty confident, but I concede there are other scientists who disagree. IF they are accurate, then we get the temperature effects of2.8degC etc.    If you wish, maybe vote for a human response similar to eg A1B (seems to be the commonly assumed "middle road" scenario )  *but WITHOUT necessarily agreeing that it will be as bad as they predict*

Heck - vote for "other" if you wish, and say that you don’t trust scientists - quote Y2K as reference maybe. 

As for the risk of overestimating the threat?  - We will hopefully rein in the current use of fossil fuels, (or don’t we care that we are using it at a totally unsustainable rate - (ANY rate cannot be sustained all that long anyway ) 
We will become more environmentally aware - surely a good thing for critters, pollution of all types.  Even reduce the global temp by a fraction hopefully (even if not as much as claimed), surely can't hurt.  

If you're saying that global COOLING is a serious risk, then we will have the systems and the committees to act on that as well - if and when it becomes a problem (right now, there aren't too many people very alarmed about too much cooling I wouldn't have thought - just ask the Vics fighting about half a dozen massive bushfires).  I mean the arctic polar cap is melting bigtime.   

By the way, the predicted temp increase at the north and south poles are respectively higher and lower that the average (see graphs) 

Meanwhile here's the effect of what 2deg, 3deg etc will have on the planet , the reefs, the islands, etc ...  on the mudcrabs,  on weather patterns ... on countries like Bangladesh etc   

Let's suppose we JUST look at Bangladesh - let's try to minimise their difficulties with some frugality (a cause which you champion - goon on you) AS WELL AS serious talk with the USA on getting them on board. 

Finally , here's that youtube on the flooding of the Thames again  -  a bit closer to home for you these days.  My guess is that people in the vicinity of those dykes holding back the Channel at the mouth of the Thames would prefer to go the cautious route :2 twocents


----------



## wayneL (13 January 2008)

Well there wasn't much evidence of GW here yesterday... I was doing burnouts in the Hummer to try and get some more CO2 out there... and I drove to the pub afterwards.


----------



## noirua (13 January 2008)

Not all seas are rising in temperature or at least not all of the same sea is. Some parts are reducing the amount of ice formation but other parts are still increasing.

Sun spots are the problem and the sun, our sun, is reported as having never been so active as it has been in the last 60 years.

This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Well there wasn't much evidence of GW here yesterday... I was doing burnouts in the Hummer to try and get some more CO2 out there... and I drove to the pub afterwards.



Wayne, So are you saying that weather bureau don't predict things exactly ? lol (just a jest)

Interestingly enough, I don't see any indication on those IPCC projections, of europe cooling due to the Gulf Stream slowing down (which it apparently has several times throughout history - and rather abruptly) and indeed Europe would become cold in that eventuality.  - refer the attached youtube(s) "Britain in for Ice Age within 20 years".  Strange the fact you have to cool things down to avoid a (local) iceage.   

Call it "self-equilibrating" if you wish - trouble is the pendulum is massive and takes a few hundred years to crank the bloody Gulf Stream "conveyor" up again.

There would be environmental (oops) refugees from UK by the thousands !!!

Heck, We would be able to charge $15 instead of $10 maybe  

 Why an Ice age may come to Britain within 20 yrs - Pt 1 of 4  etc 
............. (watch all 4 as you wish  ...  http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+come+to+Britain+within+20+yrs+&search=Search

PS I meant to add this to previous post. 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=221988&highlight=mattering#post221988

(The lady works for "Project THAMES 2100" - but (I'm fairly sure) she is talking about 2050)
 5 Disasters Waiting to Happen: Thames Flood Risk

"the barrier was biggest in the world - has protected London for 20 years."


----------



## wayneL (13 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Why an Ice age may come to Britain within 20 yrs



It actually arrived yesterday. But thanks to my efforts with the Hummer, I've delayed it for another 20 years.


----------



## noirua (13 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> So are you saying that weather bureau don't predict things exactly ?
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, I don't see any indication on those projections, of europe cooling due to the Gulf Stream slowing down ( which it apparently has several times throughout history - and rather abruptly) and indeed Europe would become cold in that eventuality.
> ...





Good grief 2020, there is a chance I might still be around in 20 years time. Make it 30 years and I'm sure to be out of here by then.

If anyone pays me, I'm quite happy to do my forecast for the next 20 years. You can have a cold, hot or neutral outcome, sunny, windy, storms or even giant icebergs crashing on to beaches near Darwin and Perth. Giant meteorites landing on Iran, Russia etc., or plenty of rain falling on Australia, all at night. 
In other words, I doubt most of these reports.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

noirua said:


> Not all seas are rising in temperature or at least not all of the same sea is. Some parts are reducing the amount of ice formation but other parts are still increasing.
> 
> Sun spots are the problem and the sun, our sun, is reported as having never been so active as it has been in the last 60 years.
> 
> This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm



noi - I've read similar before, and I disagree.  In fact we are at a low in solar activity - 

in about 4 years it will be MUCH MUCH worse - in fact one of the worst solar activity years in recent history. 

That's one of the reasons I would bet that it's gonna get hotter in the near future at least (beyond that I have to trust the experts who I think make the most sense - although I agree that a few disagree with IPCC)  

Finally, some fairly credible people seem to be convinced we should do something . .. : 2 twocents
  Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

noirua said:


> Good grief 2020, there is a chance I might still be around in 20 years time. Make it 30 years and I'm sure to be out of here by then.
> 
> If anyone pays me, I'm quite happy to do my forecast for the next 20 years. You can have a cold, hot or neutral outcome, sunny, windy, storms or even giant icebergs crashing on to beaches near Darwin and Perth. Giant meteorites landing on Iran, Russia etc., or plenty of rain falling on Australia, all at night.
> In other words, I doubt most of these reports.



noi let's pretend 
a) we're scientists
b) we are also managers of the planet - so called Lords of Creation if you wish - although the rate we are demoloishing the planet, you'd never guess

Then shouldn't a good manager act when he sees a purple patch on the horizon?

or are you implying that don't you care if it's past your life span?

Ahh - if you're referring to the options in the poll - then the intent (if you read the first - or maybe the second post in particular) is as follows



> "*how ecologically friendly, frugal, fossil-fuel-dependant, and coordinated in our efforts do you see "mankind-en-masse" being in the (near) future and for the rest of the 21st century?"  and (I guess) effective or otherwise even if we do act (one for the sceptics)*"




The intent of the poll is to guess MAN's response, 

 not necessarily the earths response to that . ok?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

How much better for the world if, when Noah was out rounding up the animals, that man had somehow missed the boat?


----------



## noirua (13 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> How much better for the world if, when Noah was out rounding up the animals, that man had somehow missed the boat?





Very good 2020, at some stage humans will leave this planet and head for outer space. Starship Enterprise and Deep Space 9. I suppose I'm a bit annoyed at arriving here several thousand years too early. 

I did post sometime ago that I got off a bus once and it crashed into a house a few hundred metres down the road on a bend, only a few seconds afterwards.
I suppose I'm a get off in time type of person. Doesn't always work with shares though, unfortunately.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

noirua said:


> Not all seas are rising in temperature or at least not all of the same sea is. Some parts are reducing the amount of ice formation but other parts are still increasing.
> 
> Sun spots are the problem and the sun, our sun, is reported as having never been so active as it has been in the last 60 years.
> 
> This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm




http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
compare 2012 to 2007 

You'll also see the 11 year cycle in sunspot activity (as discovered by Galileo) 

See the graph below... you'll see that we are currently near the bottom of a trough of solar activity.- oops low was this year - we are about to head upwards 

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



> A minimum in the eleven-year sunspot cycle took place in 2007 [1] and the start of Cycle 24 is expected in 2008.




next read about predictions for the next couple of years 
http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html



> Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
> Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms.




As I say, I'm betting it will get hotter in the near future.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 January 2008)

noirua said:


> .... This link may well explain that the sun is the problem and not the burning of coal and oil:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm



noi, 
last one on this ... promise .. (for now lol)
that article of yours clarifies this better.....  don't forget it's from July 2004, and a few thousand solar flares have gone into the ether since then . ...

By the way I think we both misquoted that article somewhat.. 
a) solar activity is high now - averaged - (but will still get higher after peak in the next 4-5 years - see below)
b) they suggest that fossil fuel is augmenting solar effects

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm


> But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.
> 
> Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.
> 
> ...




Then there's this one from 2003 ... 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3220559.stm


> According to the latest estimates of that uncertain science - predicting future solar activity - *the next solar minimum should be in 2006 rising to a maximum in 2010.*




In fact maximum in 2012 (not 2010) - and (as posted elsewhere) next cycle is allegedly gonna be worst in 400 years of records


----------

