NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible

i don’t follow the bit about a 2 degree Celsius variation in temperatures. is that based on past stuff that i am not familiar with?

The Sun is as blank as a piece of white paper at the time of writing this.
As for the climate indications, apparently the prospect of more than 3000 cold records in the U.S. (record low highs+record lows), shows that good chunks of this country and Canada are not being obedient to the dramatic uptick in temps. on the UAH site.
Mr. Archibald, what do you make of the current dramatic uptick in temps. according to UAH and the big spike in SST’s?

I’ve come to the conclusion that solar cycle predicting does not deserve the label of “science” at this point.
This saddens me. More, it saddens me that the solar scientists don’t seem willing to own up to that fact. Perhaps this isn’t surprising. Mostly, I suspect they are insanely jealous these days that the Climate “scientists” get to make “science” predictions that can’t be checked until after they’ve left scene entirely, or at least safely on pension.

Oops (old record 101)

We’re over half way through 2009 and the current sunspot numbers are pretty impressive at 160 ish sunspot less days. I say WUWT should set up a sun spotless day pool and let people guess at both the total sun spotless days in 2009 and the highest one day count in 2009.
Everyone can sign and make a guess and that includes staff at NASA then all those who chose correctly are put into a draw to win a prize!
Maybe WUWT fans will guess (ahem calculate-model-predict) better than NASA?

“The oceans are losing heat,”
and yet…
“Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest On Record For June”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090725120303.htm
Please explain are the ocean’s loosing heat because the surface temperatures are high? or are the figures questionable?

I’ve heard that a lot… weather is not climate. But what’s weather? Hansen’s predictions (pardon me, “projections”) 30 years ago were wrong, 20 years ago they were wrong also, and practically no-one predicted the last 10 years of cooling/flat temps. When is it fair to judge a theory? 30 years, 50? 100? 100,000?

@ Alex Baker (22:49:36) :
103 was the day before.

Mr. Archibald, what do you make of the current dramatic uptick in temps. according to UAH and the big spike in SST’s?
SSTs measure heat release from the oceans to the atmosphere and therefore heat lost to space from the Earth’s climate system.
Increasing SSTs without increasing ocean temperatures (and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming) means the Earth’s climate is cooling. Albeit, with a short term increase in atmospheric temperatures due to the ocean heat release.
If I were in the prediction business, I’d say this NH winter will be harsh and next summer even cooler than this year’s.

“Climate is the sum of weathers” Marcel Leroux (1928-2008)

If a Dalton Minimum Occurs, and is associated with visible global cooling, this will blow every current CO2 based Climate Model out of the water.
REF: “Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming” from http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/07/noaa-explains-global-temperature.html

Mr Archibald, you’re very sure of yourself when you state “A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.”
By looking at the NYT article, it features a panel of 12 scientists from NOAA which
“… predicts that the May 2013 peak will average 90 sunspots during that month. That would make it the weakest solar maximum since 1928, which peaked at 78 sunspots. During an average solar maximum, the Sun is covered with an average of 120 sunspots.
But the panel’s consensus “was not a unanimous decision,” said Douglas A. Biesecker, chairman of the panel. One member still believed the cycle would roar to life while others thought the maximum would peter out at only 70.””
To me, this guest post of yours smacks a bit of wanting to boost your status by quoting just one NASA scientist who, as per my reading of the article, did not state in very strong words the possibility of a Dalton Minimum, but “lies in the realm of possible”. Also, Mr Hathaway is but one scientist from NASA, and it is not certain from the article that this prediction of a Dalton Minimum is an official position of NASA. Yet you claim such in your own post.
The NYT article states that scientists confess to uncertainties in predicting future sunspot activity which is what a good scientist would do in the situation where solar processes are not fully understood. And you, who are but one individual, now claim that “A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean…” with apparent certainty.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your prediction of a Dalton Minimum would turn out to be wrong, but hey, I wouldn’t be surprised seeing the commentary I’ve read on your 2006 paper on solar cycles…
BTW, your chlorine consumption anecdote is pretty much irrelevant.

I’m just reporting the weather with a chuckle…it’s hard to figure out Mother Nature!
In terms of the instant post, I agree with it, and have been very clear expressing my opinion that the Sun’s solar maximum and minimum is a decisive influence on climate. (AGW is wrong in so many ways…)
I also happen to agree with Alex Baker’s comment that the consistent downward sweep (southern flow of cooler air) out of Canada is more reflective of the overall weather pattern. Typically, when a “southern flow” predominates in the Mid-West and East, warmer air (hot) back-flows up behind it, such as now.
Still, I have to chuckle when I think (as I’m sweating it out): “Warmer really means colder.”
Oh…Mother Nature, you’re a fickle beast…
Oh…the plans of mice and men…

I keep reading: “But, the Argo Buoys say the Oceans are Cooling.”
When was the “Last” Data from the Argo Buoys? How often do they release it. Where?

David Archibald (23:00:06) :
………..
“There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”
That’s cool! Literally.
Where was this?

I’m in Lebanon OR, 90 miles S of Portland and my thermometer never got over 98 today. Could be triple digits tomorrow, but I recall a 105 degree day two summers ago. Not to say that it wasn’t a record day for July 28 — I don’t know about that. And I’m not sure where the “official” thermometer is in Portland. I’m guessing the airport, near the tarmac.

Argo home page at
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu
or just google

A few words on the word “consensus”. When I was a “yoof of today”, so called experts used to say things like, “the current thinking is……….” or “the current thought process is that……….”, which automatically implied that things could change, as & when & if something new was discovered. I’ll give it a few years before it turns around again. Consensus is a new “group speak” word in my book, & it suggests somehow that things are settled, with little room for doubt. Then again that’s just me! Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 1925:- consensus, “Agreement of opinion on the part of ALL concerned”. Emphasis is mine, sums it ALL up nicely! If you don’t agree, you are not concerned, perhaps like the Union of Concerned Scientists!

Alan the Brit
Are you from the South West too? My house overlooks the sea wall betwen Teignmouth and Dawlish (which carries the main line railway link). The first record of it being closed was the winter following it being built in the 1840’s!
There is an engineers report (and lithographs showing damage) from around 1857 confirming the railway alignment was incorrect and that it would always have trouble coping in an extreme easterly gale. The sea wall also shows how little- if any-sea level rise since it was constructed by Brunel.
Tonyb

Should your “prediction” turn out to be correct, it will be interesting to see if the sun will indeed cause the earth to cool down some, thus throwing cold water on the AGW theory.
That’s the question.

Philip_B (23:24:40) :
……(and the Argo data says the oceans aren’t warming)…..

Where do you pick this nonsense up from, Argo says no such thing. have you a reference to your claims?
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

Spector: you wrote ” If the next three years show a continued progressive warming trend in response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming will be proven beyond a doubt.”
Care to explain why this would prove AGW beyond a doubt?

Alan the Brit (01:21:17) : A few words on the word “consensus”. When I was a “yoof of today”, so called experts used to say things like, “the current thinking is……….” or “the current thought process is that……….”,
When I was a yoof of today, so called experts used to say, “the state of the art…….”
G

Comparison between argo sea temp to 700m and hadcrut3gl gives this
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6243/argovshadcrut3vgl.jpg
In general it looks as if air temp precedes water temp. i.e. water is not pushing air temp.
It looks as if there is a steady rise in sea temp over the same period as air temp.
How would TSI do this when there is little change in TSI over the 1955 to present measuring period?

One by one they will all fall, nearly all will be wrong with their predictions, and if you look at their methods most show no understanding of what drives the Sun. I dont need to make any adjustments and I am willing to predict the next 200 years of solar activity.
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/200predsm.jpg
This grand minimum will be less severe than the Dalton.

bill (02:09:11) :
So how did the heat get in the oceans?
Is this why the temperature has not risen for a number of years – because the heat has been stored in the ocean.
Energy budget is everything – outgoing must eventually incoming else the temperature changes until black body radiation changes to equalise.
Since incoming is prettymuch static any energy stored in the sea must come from the atmosphere – giving static temps if GHGs affecting temp or falling if no GHG effect.
I would say that the sea is generally heated directly by incoming radiation from the sun – rather than the atmosphere. I also don’t think you can assume that the incoming energy is always ‘pretty much static’ due to cloud cover variations, volcanic activity and the longer term changes in the solar output.
The current El Nino conditions are most likely a result of the warm water generated in the far Eastern Pacific (Asian side) when the trade winds increased in the last la nina. This water has now worked its way back to the S American side (through sub-surface currents) and re-surfaced creating the El Nino conditions.
Frequently we might then expect positive feedback to ensue allowing for more solar radiation to be absorbed by the sea surface and a strengthening into a full El Nino event. If this fails to happen, then these El Nino conditions will have a net cooling effect on the ocean heat content.

Dave,
I think it’s going to get cooler as well….however, people are stopping the use of chlorine in pools and switching to salt water, my brother is doing in FL and he states they are all switching over quickly. Thoughts?
So, if we in a Dalton Minimum, will we be able to grow enough food? Will we have enough energy to heat with?
Interesting times…..we had record cool in July here in Ky, zero days above 90 for July, record! 81 average vs 87, record!
However, when you look at Roy’s amsutemps, July is way up there.

I said this on another thread but it is relevant here:
“There is always a balance between solar shortwave input to the oceans and the release of that energy by the oceans to the air.
I say that both components are variable but as regards the oceans that is news to many and there are those who hold that solar variation is negligible as well. However slight the variability might be the Earth is self evidently sensitive to it according to well documented historical data.
The point of balance is always changing and the only way to establish the current position is to observe whether the air around the globe is warming or cooling.
I have said elsewhere that the first indication we get that a change in temperature trend is in progress is a latitudinal shift in the air circulation systems
Changes in the composition of the air such as extra greenhouse gases cannot change the temperature of the oceans on any meaningful time scale because the air temperature always moves towards the sea surface temperature, never the other way around.
The only source of energy retained in the oceans is solar shortwave. Infra red radiation cannot get past the evaporative process.
This is a common question:
“Surely mixing of ocean surface waters with water below will transport energy downwards?”
Reply:
If the surface waters are disturbed so that some mixing can occur then that is more than offset by the surface area of the water increasing due to the development of waves. That is one reason why increased windiness will also increase the rate of evaporation. The extra energy that may be available at the surface is not made available to the ocean bulk.
However, changes in the internal circulations of the oceans (not mere ocean currents) will alter the rate of energy emission from water to air and thus over time change the equilibrium temperature of the Earth but that is part of the sun/oceanic interaction and nothing to do with changes in the composition of the air alone. Changes in the air alone cannot get energy into the oceans past the evaporative process.
The mere fact that downwelling infra red warms up the topmost molecules of the ocean surface does not imply that the normal rate of energy flow from ocean to air is reduced. All that happens is that the rate of evaporation increases and the ‘normal’ rate of flow is maintained – or someone is going to have to produce convincing evidence to the contrary which I have not so far found.

Interesting posting and comments!
On Chlorine Sales which is directly related to pool usage, there may be something there that should be explored. Yes, like crop yields, which many use as an indicator of cooling or warming, there are a load of other factors, but pool usage (unheated outdoors) should be looked at further. Let’s not be too dismissive of those thinking outside the box otherwise we’ll be like the “warm-mongers”.
As to the beginning of Cycle 24 …there were lots of prior predictions that didn’t make it. One I came across is from “the official sunspot counter” – SIDC in Belgium.
in December 2007 in its monthly report (page 5).
http://www.sidc.be/html/SWAPP/monthlybulletin/monthlybull1207.PDF
“This month, solar magnetograms of Dec 13 (2007) indicated one of the first signs of solar cycle 24. The magnetic configuration of bipolar sunspots with leading positive/negative polarity in the northern/southern hemisphere is associated with solar cycle 23.
The big spot in the MDI/magnetogram in Figure 1 of section III is such a typical example of a sunspot of cycle 23 in the southern solar hemisphere: inward magnetic field lines on the right and outward pointing field lines on the left. This spot is also located near the equator as it should according to the butterfly diagrams, which picture the drift of the sunspots to the equator (0°) during a solar cycle. The magnetic flux in the red circle however belongs to cycle 24.”
And let’s not be too hard on those NOAA Solar Scientists who try to make the best predictions based on current knowledge.
Solar Weather is a very important factor in communications and satellite performance and those industries are trying to understand future solar behavior. Like weather predictions, solar predictions will always be made … accurate or not.
Those predicting have admitted that prior predictions were not accurate and future ones should be written “in pencil”. Contrast this attitude to the “warm-mongers” consensus science of “we were right”, “we are right”, “we will always be right” and:
“Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” (Orwell 1984)
To again quote Einstein on “consensus science”:
The Nazis, who didn’t like “Jewish science”, published the propaganda pamphlet “One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein”.
Einstein replied, “If the theory were really wrong, just one would suffice.”

markinaustin (22:15:55) :
i don’t follow the bit about a 2 degree Celsius variation in temperatures. is that based on past stuff that i am not familiar with?
Good question. I’m guessing this comes from one of David’s ‘papers’. David uses the rather loose correlation that appears to exist between Solar Cycle Length and temperature. Not global temperature, as you might think, but temperatures at one or two selected locations that suit David’s hypothesis. One of them is Armagh where DA uses a previous study by Butler & Johnson (though not in the way B&J intended), to conclude that we are about to see a temperaure decline of ~2 deg “over the next few years”. There are so many things wrong with David’s conclusions that it’s not possibe to cover them all in this post. However, the 2 deg decline in temperature relates to 11-year periods which are centred on the solar maximum and solar minimum of the relevant solar cycles. This means we already have at least 5 years data for the current solar min (assuming minimum in 2008/09).
If David’s predictions are correct then we would expect to see the mean temperatures for the period 2003-2013 to be significantly lower than for the period 1991-2001 (SC22 min in 1996). We know what the Armagh mean 1991-2001 temperatures are, and presumably we also know what the mean temperatures for 2003-2008 (if 2008 is min) and for 2004-2008 (if 2009 is min) are, so we should have some idea how the predictions are progressing.
David
I know I’ve asked you this before but didn’t get a reply. So I’ll ask it again. Can you provide us with an update as to how the Armagh predictions are progressing.

FYI.
this is very typical weather for Portland Oregon the last 2 weeks of July/first week of August.
Warm air in the high deserts (3000′ to 4000′) of eastern Oregon (95 to 105 degrees F) comes west with adiabatic compression as it descends to sea level (or 200′ in Portland). Except for about 2 weeks in January (when compressing -20 degree F air really helps by getting the temp up to 0), the marine influence keeps it really nice. (As a former governor said “be sure to visit, but don’t stay…;_)
According to the NOAA forecast of July 27th”
….NIGHTS WILL REMAIN QUITE UNCOMFORTABLE AWAY FROM THE COAST.
THIS WILL ESPECIALLY BE THE CASE IN DOWNTOWN PORTLAND…WHERE THE
URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT IS WORST. TEMPERATURES IN DOWNTOWN
PORTLAND WILL STRUGGLE TO FALL TO 70 DEGREES TONIGHT..
So, this is very usual weather and, while notable, it is not memorable and those who raise it as an issue are likely newbies (and should go back to California 😉
LOL in Oregon

Regarding the falling chlorine sales over the past 12 years, there’s another possible element in that equation: the availability of information on the Internet. I have owned a modest above-ground pool for five years and I only bought my maintenance chemicals from the expensive pool store during the first summer I owned it. After that, I found several Internet sites (google Trouble-Free Pools to see one) that explain an economical and effective way to keep your pool sanitary without bankrupting yourself, using supermarket products: Clorox, baking soda, and borax, with a little bit of help from pool-store staples such as cyanuric acid. The volume of posts on those sites shows that there are many pool owners who are still swimming but, like me, haven’t been back to the pool store in years.
As to the relationship of swimming pools to climate change, I will say this: my pool’s sparkling clean, but it has stood empty almost every day this summer because, here in the Northeast , it is just too doggoned COLD to swim.

Relevant ARGO links for those interested. Knowing what to do with the data is another mater 🙂
http://sio-argo.ucsd.edu/
http://www.coriolis.eu.org//cdc/argo_rfc.htm
http://www.argo.net/
http://www.coriolis.eu.org//cdc/argo/Argo_data_guide.pdf
http://www.usgodae.org/ftp/outgoing/argo/

David Archibald: The oceans are not losing heat; the recent low temperatures have been driven entirely by ENSO. It’s easy to account for the immediate effects of ENSO, and I’ve done that in the second image, here:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/swansons-not-so-novel-post-at-realclimate/
There’s no visible reduction of SST outside of ENSO.

We are looking at July 2009 all time highest temperature ever on UAH. This year will likely be the all time low of Arctic sea ice and June was the all time high SST record, all when solar activity has been at an extended minimum. Maybe we should take the advice we give AGW proponents…. our theories need to be disprovable as well.

WRT chlorine sales.
A great many people have made a great deal of money by paying attention to what people buy, and looking for the underlying reasons. Probably a greater number of people have lost a great deal of money listening to “experts”. So while sales of a mundane item may be under the radar, many times it’s these items that can indicate trends. Sometimes “experts” with their heads in the clouds, may not see the ground they stand on, much less where they are walking.

I have just heard the BBC today saying that the forecast from the Met for a hot summer for the UK was now completely wrong and that it was the third time consecutively that the Met get it wrong about their seasonal forecast.

@ J Gary Fox (05:46:53) :
Einstein replied, “If the theory were really wrong, just one would suffice.”
Do you mean one falsification?
In astronomy, many so-called “theories” have been falsified, not just once, but multiple times…still, astronomers cling to their “theories” because astronomy is a consensus science.
One example: So-called “gravitational waves” is a principle prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity theory, however, none has ever been detected despite multiple increasingly sensitive detection instruments developed and deployed for the express purpose of the detection of “gravitational waves”.
Still the “consensus” refuses to consider the possibility that a mathematical ‘thought experiment’ (Einstein never conducted any experiments and in fact disdained empirical laboratory experiments) could be wrong.
How many scientists in the AGW camp look at their models and blithely assume a theoretical model (a series of mathematical equations) has to be right because the “math” says so?

“Dr Hathway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum and I agree with him.”
“So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.”
A description of Dr Hathway’s approach is found at http://www.solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml. The basis of the predictions is based on observations of the Sun and are closely related to determining solar minimum. Without a better understanding of the physics of the Sun’s processes, how can one rule out a Maunder Minimum?

What is needed here is commentary from that reknowned Climatologist, Grace Adler, late of Will & Grace, specifically the “I Told You So” dance:
I Told You So, I Told You So,
Told Ya Told Ya Told Ya So!
It’s better when Debra Messing and her stage mom, Debbie Reynolds, do it.

David Archibald (23:00:06) :
………..
“There is another way of measuring climate change – pool chlorine sales. I met a bloke recently who has been selling pool chemicals for the last 17 years. Chlorine consumption is directly proportional to heat. His chlorine sales have been falling for the last 12 years.”

As mentioned multiple times above, there are some problems with a single source reference, but it would be interesting to look at a controlled sample of pool chlorine usage.
For example a sample of municipal pools that have been in continuous use for several decades. Control the chlorine usage rates for things like changes in procedure (do they still attempt to achieve the same chlorine usage levels today as they did 20 years ago)? Chart the number of swim visitor days (might be an interesting proxy for the general discomfort level). During heat waves they always run news stories how municipal pool visits skyrocket.
Once you cast out or account for variables like above, chlorine usage like other chemical uses that are heat dependent might be useful “reasonableness checks” on the urban heat island effect for one thing. If the weather reporting system is reporting rising temperatures in cities, but pool usage is dropping or stagnant, then you have an interesting dilemma, are temperatures really going up in the cities? Are peoples swimming preferences changing? Are people not visiting pools because they are staying home in the AC and playing video games.
The comment does raise the issue, are there robust indicators of temperatures that are independent of the formal temperature reporting system. Chemical processes that have no political agenda would seem to be something good to look for in this case. If some chemical usage varies directly due to temperature, and the process is not dependent on human behavior (like swimming visits) it might serve as a useful proxy. In the building trades one reference point might be usage of calcium chloride in concrete to help it set in cold weather. Antifreeze sales in winter would be another possible reference point. Each alone would be a relatively weak proxy but a group of chemical process indicators might provide an interesting second source check against the reporting stations data.
I personally would like to see someone gather heating degree day and cooling degree day information from major cities and plot changes over time since perhaps the 1940’s. Many utilities quote heating and cooling degree day information on their heating bills as fuel usage tracks quite well with those numbers.
Larry

I’ve been in agreement with Archibald ever since he began. He has connected (hindcasted is a great word) all the data I had at hand back in the early 60’s to more recent curves for solar activity. Meanwhile, though, people keep locking in on local anomalies as if they belie Archibald’s studies and graphs.
Let’s not forget that our planet is a giant dynamical system. Let’s not forget that someone (China) just inserted a HUGE strange attractor (or repeller, depending on whether hundreds of square miles of evaporation attract or repel air-streams, which in turn modify the oscillations of the jet streams).
What I am asserting is that all these incredibly destructive and uncomfortable “local” (like the ongoing Pacific Coast furnace or snow in Argentina) are the results of oscillations of the jet stream caused by the 3 Gorges anomaly. Meanwhile, if you just peer daily at http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/templine_nat_640x480_img.htm you will see the HUGE southward swing of cooling temperatures.
It is those temperature swings (which have been there daily for months now) that encouraged me to not only get in my firewood (I’m done), but to get as much tamarak (highest BTU’s in our region) as possible. I also have amassed about 25% more than last year since I ran out, as did my neighbors, this spring after burning my stove (I heat with firewood) from about 10-1 last year until late APRIL this year…and my grape bushes have no grapes, and my plum tree has no plums.
I’m proposing that “Put another log on the fire” will be a rather frequently hummed tune early this fall.

And…neutron cosmic rays Oulu count it is above 10%, the highest since 1964:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/06/29&starttime=00:00&enddate=2009/07/29&endtime=18:59&resolution=Automatic choice&picture=on

I believe Mikko’s points are valid.
And if you have a look at Leif’s charts you see that flux isn’t “flat” at all, it is pretty much right along the curve that Leif plotted months ago. Looks like as far as F10.7, things are pretty much on target.
Personally, I am taking Archibald’s forecasts with a grain of salt, as I am pretty much all such forecasts of solar activity. While a Dalton repeat is possible, so is getting hit in the noggin with a meteorite when I walk out my front door. So far the forecast that makes the most sense to me is Svalgaard’s. Hathaway has been all over the place but that isn’t so bad, really, I would tend to have more respect for someone able to modify their view as more is learned than someone who sticks to a position in the face of conflicting observations (as is common in another area of science frequently discussed on this blog).

The Seattle area, generally very marine climate influenced is also experiencing very high to record highs ( regularly as much as 20+ degree’s above average), and record high-lows. They are forcasting triple digits at Sea-Tac today – which tends to be cooler than the city. Quite the contrast to last summer, when we were cool and moist well into June, and never did have many really hot days.
It has also been very dry (so dry, I’m shocked I’m not hearing cries of “drought” from the local ptb. They seem to love to cry drought in the summer.) with less than 0.09 inch of rain. Half an inch is normal for July.
Last winter was cooler than normal – though not record setting. We did have lots of snow over several different “events”.
Has anyone done a study of different climactic zone variation during the Dalton Minimum as opposed to an “average” cycle?

Looking at that chart, and seeing how high cycle 23 was, it looks like what we might see is maybe a 1 degree drop by the end of cycle 24 in some 11 years. This is a very slow process – a tiny lessing of solar radiation, but steady and for a decade or 2 if Archibald is right.

Geoff Sharp (05:14:50) :You are right!. I have always wondered why so a deep rejection against any greater laws whatsoever, it seems that whoever is behind such a ideology is in need of a randomness behind all nature´s phenomena.
Such a pretension of a “mini-reason” it is always behind those who want to change everything, as in the french revolution or as in the china´s cultural revolution. Fortunately life goes on following greater laws and not theirs.

A concidence, correspondence, or whatever, but you have noticed that the prophet has not appeared yet again with The inconvenient Truth 1.2 version?

Hey, AGW is wrong in my opinion, but I find it funny that when ‘weather is not climate’ is reported of cooler temperatures, many (including myself) jump on the band wagon and sing the praises of cooler temperatures, but when reports of hotter (record setting) temperatures are reported, a 101 reasons are offered for why they don’t matter.
It just goes to show human nature tends to lead to ‘confirmational bias’ and folks on all sides of the question should be conscious of that pitfall.
Science does not understand the Sun — Earth relationship, and a frank confession of that state of knowledge should always be the starting point for all sides of the question.
Why?
Because Science is about the unknown, engineering is about what we do know.

TonyB et al:-))
I have just downloaded Peirs Corbyn’s team effort for the July predictive forecast made in late June – uncannily accurate almost to the day! Well worth a wander over to Climaterealists.com for a look see!
Someone further up the chain (possibly on another post) mentioned that PC offered his services to the Wet Office years ago, they turned him down flat, as did the government of the day, presumably on the advice of “experts”. reminds me of the late great Sir Barnes Wallace & his fanciful swing-wing high-altitude super jet ideas, where we literally could breakfast in London, lunch in Sidney, & dine in New York, & sleep back in the UK! Britain is great at that kind of thing – losing brains I mean.

Leif’s plot of 10.7 and TSI show cycle 24 to be progressing nomally but slowly:
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Philip_B (08:27:01) :
Your bulb will heat the water by long wave radiation and most will be absorbed by the 1st few mm.
LW will also heat the air (and a lot quicker than water)
UV penetrates the ocean to greater depth and is mainly absorbed by ozone in the air.
From my post above:
Comparison between argo sea heat content to 700m and hadcrut3gl gives this
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6243/argovshadcrut3vgl.jpg
Comparison of tsi and SST
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/normalise/mean:50/plot/pmod/from:1935/normalise/mean:50/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1935/normalise/mean:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1935/normalise/mean:50
So I ask again
The sea has gained 12*10^22 joules from some where and from the second plot it does not look like TS1
reference for argo data:
https://abstracts.congrex.com/scripts/jmevent/abstracts/FCXNL-09A02a-1661562-1-Obs_for_OHC_WhitePaper_v3.doc

Oulu monitor still up then solar cycle 24 still down. Big chief right again.

“NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.”
Mr Archibald, you appear to have a hazy notion of what ‘predicting solar activity’ means. If you make a prediction three years before someone else makes a prediction, this does not make you ‘better’ at predicting than they are. You do actually have to wait until the thing you are predicting either occurs or does not occur.
“Even based on our understanding of solar – climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature.”
This figure of 2°C appears to be arbitrary. No calculations are presented. The observed climate response to the 11 year solar cycle has an amplitude of about 0.1°C.
“The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent.”
Why should they have been anything other than oblivious to this number?
“Let’s now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.”
The Canadian wheat crop has not yet been harvested. The prediction is for a 20% drop compared to last year, but again, you should realise that to assess the accuracy of a prediction, you need to wait until the observational data is actually available.
“As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming.”
Mark Steyn in fact said something different, but no less wrong. All temperature measurements show a warming of more than 0.3°C over the last 29 years.
“I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.”
Who is this person? What is their model based on? Has it been published?
One prediction made for a date that has now passed, which I would be most interested in comments on, is described here.

Well, it’s been a pretty mild summer here in NW AL/MS so far. Plenty rain, temps in upper ’80’s mostly. No bad storms. Great weather actually. I vote we keep this weather permanently as the ideal and baseline for future generations. 🙂

John Finn (11:24:06) : “Felt by whom – and where?”
*Felt by whom : Europeans who kept temperature/weather records indicate so. Others unknown
*Where : Written records indicate Europe, other areas sparse information/unknown.

Maybe Alert, Nunavut would be a good station to evaluate the “minimum”.
Arctic basin ice area increasing again:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html
Alert, Nunavut, Canada at 82degN at the freezing point, chance of snow Saturday:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/71082.html

The remarks were:
—————-
timetochooseagain (23:35:12) :
Antonio San (23:26:39) : Actually, no, its the sum of “weathers” divided by the number of “weathers” but it is a good point. Most people really don’t seem to understand they relationship between weather and climate-which is strange since so much of it is intuitive and very basic math for the rest…
—————-
Define your terms and your reasoning:
.
[1] ‘weathers’
.
[2] ‘number’
.
[3] ‘sum’
.
[4] Why would one ‘divide’ one by the other?
.

John Finn (11:32:18) :
Lee (09:15:29) :
Looking at that chart, and seeing how high cycle 23 was, it looks like what we might see is maybe a 1 degree drop by the end of cycle 24 in some 11 years. This is a very slow process – a tiny lessing of solar radiation, but steady and for a decade or 2 if Archibald is right.
I know of a way you can make a bit of money. Get in touch with James Annan and offer him a bet on cooling over the next decade. I’m fairly confident he will be only too willing to oblige. I’ll give Annan his due he does put his money where his mouth is.
John, what would I be betting on? That Archibald is right about the lower cycle, that he’s right about the 2 degree difference? that my interpretation is right? so far it looks to me like I ought to get pretty big odds.
I think it is going to get colder because as opposed to run-away effects, I believe in reversion to mean – particularly in the relative short run. We have had a few years of relatively warm weather (as evidenced by say melting polar caps), so I expect cooler years to come. Not necessarily colder than average, just cooler than they have been (but of course possibly a lot cooler).

Mr. Alex (12:34:40) :
John Finn (11:24:06) : “Felt by whom – and where?”
*Felt by whom : Europeans who kept temperature/weather records indicate so. Others unknown
Ok – now all I need is the “temperature/weather records”. Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum and I know about the De Bilt record and that also shows no significant cooling. There’s also the Uppsala record and that shows the 1850s to be much colder than the Dalton Minimum.
Do you have anything else?

If there is only the elevated temps of the 2nd half of the 20th century and the return to means, then there will never be anything colder than the means.
The current baseline is there because of the timeframe upon which it was measured.
The other side of the means is fully capable of manifesting itself, and eventually, it will do just that. It could just as easily do it quickly or slowly.
To say that 2 C cooling is impossible or improbable is to be narrowminded and focus only on what the last 100 years has wrought.
To say that nature has to take it’s sweet time is to make the mistake of reading that geologists did before Mt. St. Helens proved them wrong.
The only question is: How far and how fast do we now cool?
The Sun is and has been out to lunch for quite some time, and given the elevated global temps of the 20th Century Warm Period, it has much to act upon.
Now, who said “The bigger they are the harder they fall”?
A quick look at the pre-alarmist spread of data & measurements reveals how hard things currently sit at the high swing of the pendulum.
David has given us his honest appraisal of that scene.
Given our current state of knowledge on the interaction of the Sun/Atmosphere/Oceans/Land Masses/Galactic Environment, what he has done is no different than the predictors on this page:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
They all end up as handing out a prediction.
They all got there via differering routes.
Most were wrong.
The signpost up ahead says we are entering the Twilight Zone of our late Warming Period.
David says further & faster.
Fine. Let the competition begin.

John Finn (15:48:31) :
The Upsalla Record compares itself to the Wolf number, which is not a measurement as much as it is a count.
For real measurements, see:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/GrPulDebSFOSN_U_UP_F.PNG
The last 3 cycles for Faculae measurements are pending/not certain as to how they relate to Greenwich measurements. They will have to be measured from white-light images directly.
Safe to say that the Wolf record does not reflect the actual extent of solar activity, though it is certainly convenient and much used.
Not the best tool to use.

rbateman (15:58:36) :
Thanks Robert, well said. I tend to agree with your many comments and analyses.

The other link to the millennial solar proxy record was bad. Here is a good one.
http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=288735
and here is the CET record at the Met:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html

Richard (16:39:58) :”John Finn (15:48:31) : “Rest assured I know about the CET record (England) and that doesn’t show significant cooling during the Dalton Minimum”
I have the CET records. It shows significant cooling from 1659 to 1698 (Maunder Minimum) and then again from 1736 to 1816. Just plot the trendlines.
Also the Average CET temperature during the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) is 9.093C and the average for 1979 to 2008 is 9.949. It was on the average 0.86C cooler”
Does your data look like the chart in http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcet.html
?
I am wondering how they “adjusted” this data? Did they use the Mann method? It was shown that the Mann method would decrease the amplitude of events before the calibration period. That could account for the compressed data before the present time.

Just don’t know about this. There are so many factors involved in climate change. We humans just love cycles. They make it easier for our little brains to explain our mundane problems in this big, complicated universe of ours. But can we honestly say with any degree of predictive certainty which way the wind will blow in Canada or the US? I dare say we cannot. All of the statistical models from both sides of the scientific debate (indeed: are there two sides and is this really a constructive debate?) are so “spotty” and lacking in convincing methodology.
I should also say that temperature measurements are not geographically uniform around the planet — not on land and not in the oceans. There is nobody that can argue the contrary. We do not have a coherent system for accomplishing this. And I imagine measuring uniform temp in the oceans with any statistical significance is nearly impossible. About like measuring temperature at higher elevations in the atmosphere around the planet. Currents would make both extremely difficult.
Until we do get an evenly distributed temp measurement system in place, none of the data from either side of the main climate change debate will mean anything wrt which way it is going — the temperature, that is. And even then, we’ll need years of data points before a useful picture emerges. Probably decades. When you quote, “nobody under the age of 29 has experienced global warming,” remember that this is a biased statement. You are most definitely *not* talking about people in rural Zimbabwe. Nor are you talking about people in northwestern Mongolia. This may seem like an insignificant point to you, but it isn’t to me.
As for your predictions — even a broken clock is right twice a day. I suspect the future will humble you soon enough. It tends to humble us all. Scientists are so concerned with what is true. This is a great thing — it has saved us from a world where priests, kings and feudal lords here in the West decided the fates of their “subjects”. (It was worse in other parts of the world and it largely still is.) Scientific truth, however, is often if not always difficult to apprehend. Here we are, postulating, counterpostulating, arguing, boasting, even insulting. We take defensible positions. But none of it is scientifically true. We have certain facts, but there is no irrefutable answer.
I should hope that more scientists continue to passionately pursue discovery and the truth, but also to remain committed to what serves. I ask: Why not err on the side of caution?