Old, but untold. Trenberth treated us to a trick in his Halloween interview with Bill Sweet by changing the sign on his own most famous quote. As Trenberth now tells it:
One cherry-picked message saying we can’t account for current global warming and that this is a travesty went viral and got more than 100,000 hits online.
The email in question actually bemoaned how Trenberth couldn’t account for the LACK of global warming:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Global warming… LACK of global warming. Hey, what’s the difference?
This is Trenberth’s answer to having his doubts exposed by the ClimateGate leak: just cover them back up. Pretend that the revealing email said the opposite of what it actually said and PROBLEM SOLVED. The guy’s a genius. No wonder he rose to the esteemed lead author position.
Of course he’s not fooling anyone who knows what he actually said. Add that lack of warming does have to do with the state of global warming, and most knowledgeable people will grant Trenberth the benefit of the doubt, but should they? Ignorant people will be fooled, and Trenberth has a habit of misleading the ignorant.
Here is Trenberth in a follow-up interview with Sweet (after Sweet was apparently inundated with comments and email calling Trenberth a liar and castigating Sweet for playing softball—yay WUWT):
Sweet: Can you say something about the widespread belief that solar activity somehow accounts for the temperature changes we’ve seen in recent decades?
Trenberth: That’s easily disproven. It’s nonsense. Since 1979 we’ve had spacecraft measuring total solar irradiance, and there’s been no change—if anything the sun has cooled slightly. There’s nothing in the record that indicates that the sun is responsible for any of the warming in this period.
Trenberth knows full well that “solar activity” refers primarily to solar-magnetic activity, which varies by an order of magnitude over the solar cycle, while total solar irradiance is almost invariant over the solar cycle (which is why it is called the solar constant). Does he really think he can disprove the theory that 20th century warming was caused by solar activity without looking at anything but the least active solar variable?
Again, the knowledgeable will not be fooled, but it is perfectly clear that Trenberth’s intent in this instance is to deceive the ignorant. He is also providing us with an example of what he was talking about in his original IEEE interview when he said:
Scientists almost always have to address problems in their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded.
That pesky data about solar-magnetic activity and earthly temperatures being highly correlated? (“The long term trends in solar data and in northern hemisphere temperatures have a correlation coefficient of about 0.7 – .8 at a 94% – 98% confidence level.”) “Best disregarded.”
And it is easily done. Just change out “solar activity” for the least active solar quantity and, voilà. As easy as replacing “lack of global warming” with “global warming.”
As J.R. Ewing put it, “once you give up integrity, the rest is easy.”
Any other “lumpies”? (Santa must have had anti-CO2 alarmists in mind when he chose coal for the bad. Like crosses for vampires.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Trenbeth long ago emigrated from the world of science to the world of politics. He says what he thinks his political paymasters want him to say. And, if there is any doubt, he will play harder for his money.
Trenbeth is not a scientist; he is a man on the make. If he claims he is a scientist, he is a fraud!
And you can quote me on that.
I have no problem with his comment about solar activity. I haven’t been convinced either by any of the proposed mechanisms for solar influence in weather pattern variation change. The null hypothesis still stands, meaning that the theory of a constant sun is still king no matter what part is being measured.
But I do have problems with his back track on not being able to account for global warming, IE the missing heat signal, “at the moment”. Eventually he will have to back up that comment with hard data. He is treating the missing heat signal like a theory when it is still a hypothesis. The proper way to phrase the conundrum would be to stipulate a hypothesis: An anthropogenic CO2 heat signal is somewhere in the complex nature of weather pattern variation. The null hypothesis (IE theory) would be that this heat is not building up within the physical world around us and is instead being leaked out into space or is so small that it can’t be physically measured outside natural variation.
What is it these days with some Ph.D. types? Are they so enamored with their intellectual skill that any and every thing they think up gets to bypass go and jump to a theory? And just to be clear, I would say that about both sides of this discussion. Discernment seems lacking in many a brain engaged in this debate.
Alec Rawls: Your linked Usoskin et al paper is not a paper I would have expected to see used in a discussion of natural climate variability, since it concludes with the following paragraph: “Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During the last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming must have another source.”
The paper cited concerning long term solar trends backs up what Trenberth said. It says:
“Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
Now consider those correlation figures again for pre-1975. Alarm bells should be ringing if solar activity correlates so well with temperature up until 1975 and then suddenly it diverges. What has increased a lot in the past few decades that could be the new driver? *cough* co2
Bob and Onion: thanks for bring up the qualifier in the Usoskin paper. It’s about time they withdrew it, don’t you think? That is exactly what Trenberth’s travail over the lack of warming is about. We have now had over a decade of level or falling temperatures, coinciding with the fall off in solar activity, just as the long term correlation between solar activity and temperature would lead us to expect.
Pamela: Do you have to be convinced by the proposed mechanisms for solar activity on climate to have a problem with Trenberth’s “proof” against them? He’s using the solar constant to represent solar activity!
Speaking of disregarding things, you seem to have disregarded the following statements from your very own reference:
So, in fact, this is totally inline with Trenberth’s statement “Since 1979 we’ve had spacecraft measuring total solar irradiance, and there’s been no change—if anything the sun has cooled slightly. There’s nothing in the record that indicates that the sun is responsible for any of the warming in this period.” In fact, it adds the additional information that other aspects of the solar radiation…its UV irradiance and the cosmic ray flux (due to the sun’s magnetic variations or what-have-you) haven’t shown a trend that could account for the temperature trend either.
So, yes, somebody might deserve a lump of coal in their stocking, but it doesn’t look like it is Trenberth!
Alec Rawls: Also regarding Usoskin et al (2005) you linked…
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
…one of the long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions Usoskin et al used to correlate with their sunspot reconstruction was MBH99, a.k.a. Mann, Bradley, Hughes (1999) = the controversial Hockey Stick paper. The other paper is Mann and Jones (2003). In other words, Usoskin et al (2005) was prepared to substantiate the hockey sticks. Are you sure that Usoskin et al is the paper you want to use to contradict Trenberth’s statement?
Remember: It is perfectly acceptable for those that agree with Trenberth to cherry-pick anything they want, but the minute someone who does not agree with him cherry-picks something … well now, that is taking things out of context.
I hate hypocrisy. Politicians like Trenberth always play the morality card or the “taken out of context” card. This reminds me of games we played as kids where if the person in control starts to lose, the rules suddenly change. Well, people like Trenberth are in control and the rules change so that he and his cartel always win.
Alec,
I now see that you have responded to the fact that your paper completely destroys your thesis by a really weak comment. If you want to claim that the temperature trend since the mid-1970s correlates well with the solar variation then you will have to actually prove it graphically. Hint, this is the sort of curve you will be trying to correlate to: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif and, no, it doesn’t show a decade of level or falling temperatures. It shows a general upward trends with lots of short term variability, just like climate models forced with steadily-increasing greenhouse gases show.
it’s “western science”. some more gems in here, competing for some lumps of coal:
24 Dec: Nature: Quirin Schiermeier: The toughest job in the world?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seeks its first communications chief.
Now, the IPCC is looking for its very first Communications and Media Relations Programme Manager to help it avoid the pitfalls of the internet media age…
“In a world of rapid communication you cannot move at the speed of the slowest,” says Nick Nuttall, Spokesperson and Head of Media with the United Nations Environment Programme, which set up the IPCC in 1988 jointly with the World Meteorological Organization. The glacier affair didn’t need to become the feeding frenzy for the international media that it did, he says. “In scientific circles it had been known for months that something was badly wrong with the glacier claim. A skilled public-relations manager with a good network of relevant scientists could have nipped the problem in the bud before it burst on the scene, rather than having journalists claim a scoop,” says Nuttall…
“It will be a very challenging job,” says Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Penn State University in University Park. Critics “will be taking pot shots from the sidelines at every turn”.
“But the clearer we can be in communicating scientific knowledge, the harder it will be for professional climate-change deniers to manufacture false doubt, confusion and controversy”, he says. “It isn’t enough to just report the scientific findings. We need to strive to do so in a way that makes them accessible to the person on the street.”…
(Nuttall) Given that the IPCC is often perceived as being ‘western science’, it will be essential to look at candidates from a developing country – although in the end it is the best person for the job that should be selected, he says…
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101224/full/news.2010.692.html
onion says:
“What has increased a lot in the past few decades that could be the new driver? *cough* co2”
Other than climate grant money, enviro-fascism and the ego of the climate cult?
Well, this chart my give some clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:800px-Sunspot_butterfly_with_graph.gif
I find it amusing when people expect it to correlate exactly to temperature since these same climate scientists have for years said that heat is would be trapped in the ocean causing a lag in the atmosphere temperature readings. Why couldn’t that lag have been from the increasing solar activity since the end of the LIA? Combine that with measurement error, measurement bias, changing measurement methods and you may have a winner.
Perhaps you can also explain to me why temperature went down from 1940 to 1970 even though CO2 was increasing? Sulfates you say? Well then why hasn’t there been a significant rise in temperature in the past 10 years even though CO2 has been going up?
I think you’ll find that the temperature changing track much better with the oceanic cycles than they do with CO2. The problem is that the global warming nuts like Trenberth keep on changing their stories and coming up with new excuses because their various theories don’t hold water – instead they have to dazzle people with increasing levels of bullshit.
Anyway, thanks for the article Alec, this is the sort of thing that interests me.
Lump of Coal! Nonsense, he gets nothing or perhaps some poorly composted dung. Us coal geologists take offense. Coal gets a bad and not well deserved rap but this is too much. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the real lump of coal given by Cinter Clause (hope I spelled that correctly, my Dutch is poor to questionable) had real value, since it was the only portable fuel available when that story was written. And as I recall winter in the Netherlands in those days was cold with snow and frozen canals. Coal kept the dwellings at least habitable. He gets nothing of value for being a bad boy.
Bob: There are of course many other articles I could cite on the correlation between solar activity and climate. Two leading alarmists, Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich, began a 2007 paper by acknowledging that, “[t]here is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate,” citing 17 papers to this effect. Take your pick.
The point is, the long term correlation between solar acivity and climate is a very well documented phenomenon, and all the warmists are fully aware of it (the warmist climatologists at least, who are busy duping their followers).
In 2009 Frolich repeated the Usoskin et al. claim that the most recent solar-activity/climate data (post 1985 in his case) diverges from the long term correlation. Surely you agree that this dodge is no longer tenable (and wasn’t last year when he made it).
12 years with no warming. Where is the inexplicable warming that these people are talking about? There isn’t any. And we have a dramatic fall off in solar activity that CAN explain the end of post 1980 warming. The correlation is a textbook. The claim that the solar activity explanation is inconsistent with the latest data is just a lie.
Sun Oddly Quiet — Hints at Next “Little Ice Age”?
May 4, 2009
National Geographic News
… The sun is the least active it’s been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850. The coldest period of the Little Ice Age, between 1645 and 1715, has been linked to a deep dip in solar storms known as the Maunder Minimum.
During that time, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice, and canals in Holland routinely froze solid. Glaciers in the Alps engulfed whole villages, and sea ice increased so much that no open water flowed around Iceland in the year 1695.
But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.
“[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward,” said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K.
He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call “preemptive denial” of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.
===========================
Quiet sun puts Europe on ice
04 May 2010
NewScientist
BRACE yourself for more winters like the last one, northern Europe. Freezing conditions could become more likely: winter temperatures may even plummet to depths last seen at the end of the 17th century, a time known as the Little Ice Age. That’s the message from a new study that identifies a compelling link between solar activity and winter temperatures in northern Europe.
The research finds that low solar activity promotes the formation of giant kinks in the jet stream. These kinks can block warm westerly winds from reaching Europe, while allowing in winds from Arctic Siberia. When this happens in winter, northern Europe freezes, even though other, comparable regions of the globe may be experiencing unusually mild conditions.
Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading in the UK began his investigation because these past two relatively cold British winters coincided with a lapse in the sun’s activity more profound than …
===========================
From preemptive denier to solar advocate in a year.
Of course the effects are not limited to Europe, as Mike would like.
Just an update;
Below are some of my latest thoughts on what is driving the weather and climate.
All of the universe affects the rest of it, it all sits in a bowl of gravitational and magnetically driven mass of ions and regular atoms, that respond to the basic physics detailing the “normal rules or laws”. To think that there are voltages or ions that move with out magnetic fields attached violates first principals. The magnetically permeable inductive components of planetary bodies are susceptible to Ohms laws, and Maxwells power equations apply to the full spectrum of from DC to most energetic particle seen.
So we should be able to calculate forces at work when planets have synod conjunctions, by determining the shifts of flux of the magnetic fields, with the shifting density and speed of the solar wind. When the Ulysses satellite was on polar orbit of the sun “they were amazed that the patterns usually seen in the solar wind were still there, but also much stronger than they expected by several orders of magnitude.” To me this means that the main crux of magnetic connections between the planets is in the normal distribution of concentrations at the poles/apexes of lab magnets and the large sweeping fields are weakest along the circumference, neutral current sheet, or equatorial regions, and also not only flowing with the neutral sheet of the solar wind but focus concentrations down onto the poles of the planets, as evidenced by the polar Auroral displays from the much larger loops further off of the ecliptic plane.
The galactic magnet fields are also influenced by basic rules of action as well, which leads me to the conclusion that the interactions of the composite system from the rotation of the Galaxy, and the declinational movement of the solar system in that larger frame of reference, as well as the density waves that propagate around driving the spiral arm flux variances give rise to the longer cyclic term climatology of the Earth. Some have been found, other underlying cycles that as yet we do not have their specific drivers identified. (back to this point later)
The heliopause seems to have auroral knotted bands (recently spotted ribbons of ion activity) on its leading side as it progresses through the interstellar gases and dust clouds, the solar system passes through in its travels. I think that this is due to the conductance of the galactic fields into or through the heliopause, coupling through the polar regions of the sun and planets, at near equilibrium, or the balance felt as steering currents in the slow transition of the orbital slowing and swaying of the solar system as it winds its way through the gravitational and radiation gauntlet, shoved around ever so slowly by the rest of the individual stars.
So then as a result the makeup of the planetary interaction periods have become some what stable, and have formed harmonic coupled interactions between themselves, and the non-random long term slower periods. Not much is said about the tilt of the magnetic poles, of most of the planets and the sun from their spin axes. I think even this has something to add about long term climate effects. In the common hospital use of MRI scanners, the magnetic induction pulses are used to flip atomic spin axes in line with the dense fields momentarily formed with pulse current on, and watching the return to ambient spin axes when current goes off. (back to this point later) If people have learned to control the effects would not they also occur in nature if they are so predictable? If you apply the calculations with the right power increase needed to satisfy the balance of the equation, the same effects should occur with reference to stars and planets.
If all of the planets and the sun are running along, in near balance with changes in outlying fluxes upon the solar system, disruptions in the periodic patterns should be minimal, with much greater stability being found in the harmonic patterns in the interactions between the planets of the solar system, as a result milder climate with less wild extremes would dominate at times of stability.
Currently the magnetic poles of the sun are running ~12 degrees off of its vertical axes of rotation, with a period of rotation of 27.32 days, as a result the Earth and Moon themselves move above and below the ecliptic plane alternately, while the system barycenter scribes a smooth ellipse responding to the gravitational and tidal tugs of the outer planets as we pass them almost every 12 months plus a few days. The resultant periodic 27.32 day flux of the polarity of the solar wind as it passes the Earth creates and drives the declinational swings North and South in the two bodies, as a giant pulsed oscillator circuit, dampened by the tidal drag of the fluidity of the various parts of the Earth, small solid core, outer liquid core, fluid mantel, and fragmented floating crust, that is itself creeping along tectonically in response to the dance of the combination of the additions of the other planetary tidal, gravitational, and electromagnetic induction fluxes that keep the inner fluids warm.
The further off of vertical, and/or the stronger the total magnetic flux of the sun’s magnetic poles, the more energy available to be driven into the lunar declinational cycle balanced by the tidal dampening into the Earth, hence the greater the solar magnetic impulse input the greater the resultant tectonic turmoil, the more extreme the weather and climate. The weaker the magnetic fields of the sun relative to the near DC fields of the galactic background levels, and the more vertical the magnetic fields of the sun the less energy gets driven into the lunar declinational movement and resultant tidal dampening energy into the Earth.
As the spin axes and magnetic axes of the sun approach straight on alignment, the whole declinational drive component of the Moon orbital dynamic decreases, to maybe as little as a degrees either side of the ecliptic plane, changing to a more synergistic combination of the solar and lunar tidal effects at an angle of 23.5 +/_.5 referenced to the equator, keeping the atmospheric global circulation in the kind of high turbulence blocking pattern, sort of weather we have been having the past two years and the next two as well. When continued past the normal length of time (about 3 years on the down and up side) in the 18.6 year variation of the mechanism of transport of equatorial heat towards the poles, stalled in the most active section of atmospheric lunar tidal effects, coupled in sync to the solar tides as well, the long term trend then becomes a constant la nina, and an ice age sets in.
Just as in MRI scanning the initial pulsed spin flip is nearly instantaneous, and does not seem to affect the covalent bonds the atoms are part of, so maybe the solar magnetic orientation to polar axes of rotation, flip is hardly noticeable over 100 years or less, just as the wandering of the Earth’s magnetic field pole positions are hardly noticed by the public. The ongoing dampening of the tidal movement of the lunar declinational extent at culmination would regulate the dropping rate due to actual amount of tidal dampening load transferred to the Earth. As the declination off of the ecliptic plane drive energy lessens and becomes slowly coupled out by tidal inter action, and the Lunar orbital diameter expanded to compensate slightly. This would explain the rapid onset of ice ages, and then the re-flip to off axes solar magnetic polar alignment, renew the declinational driver system again and cause the pulsation type exit usually seen from ice ages.
The short term inter ice age, realistic application of these ideas is in the much more recent history (due to short instrument records) of the past three to five maybe (Ulric Lyons says 10 cycles works best because it = the 178.8 year Landschmidt(sp) cycle period.) Can be assembled in composite maps that use the 6558 day period of 240 declinational periods that shows analog synchronization of the inner planet harmonic effects on the weather, from just the past three cycles as seen on the daily maps here.
http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx
The problem left is that the outer planet have a set of harmonics of their own that induce the 178.8 years envelope on the 18.6 year mn cycle pattern that have in turn a finer 27.32 day oscillation imposed, so the complete long period of compounded modulation is as Ulric Lyons suggests 178.8 years long as Landschmiedt (sp) was on about with the effects of the outer planetary returns driving the solar sunspot cycles due to SS Barycenter displacement due to Uranus Neptune synod conjunctions. The available data base gets extremely thin out 178.8 year ago. Due to data limitations, I have so far stayed with just the last three cycles of 6558 days or ~18.3 years.
On April 20th of 1993 we had the most recent synod conjunction of Neptune and Uranus, which the Earth passed on July 12th of 1993, presenting as an epic precipitation surge globally with heavy rains through the summer and massive flooding of several river system around the world. It is my contention that the increase in magnetic couplings through the polar magnetic field connections induces a homopolar generator charge increase at these times and a quick global discharge just after synod conjunction. The results of these increases in pole to equator charge increases drives positive ions off of the sea surface along the ITCZ, where by mutual static repulsion of the condensation nuclei inhibits cloud formation and precipitation, and at the same time allows more SW radiation to reach the tropical sea and land surfaces promoting rapid warming driving ENSO extremes, with the rapid precipitation that results on the global discharge side, post synod conjunction, also leaving clearer skies for additional warming after the flooding subsides.
The lunar declination phase of the 18.6 year mn cycle was in an increasing through 23.5 degree culmination angle at the same time, being in phase with the temperature increases. By early 2005 the declinational angle at culminations was at its peak extreme, and the distance between Uranus and Neptune was separating again to about 29 days apart August 8th of 2005 for synod of Earth and Neptune and September 1st of 2005 for synod conjunction of Earth and Uranus. The Southeast gulf coast was ravaged by Katrina and Rita as a direct result of these influences. Combining with the 27.32 day period lunar declinational tides culminations they rode in on, to produce the storm intensity that resulted.
As the outer planets Neptune and Uranus continued to separate and the declinational angle shifted past peak angle at culmination the resultant peak warming period shifted further into the late Summer and now is in the Fall in 2010. The reason I think the last season 2010 was so active but not as powerful in ACE production as 2005 was due to the addition of Jupiter in Synod conjunction on April 3rd in 2005 kicking things off, and on the 21st of September 2010 with Uranus on the same day, creating a late fast finish in 2010. But having a half hearted start of a season in 2010 as a result of the difference.
Over all the whole period of the close Neptune and Uranus synods in the mid to late summer allowed the extra clearing of clouds and resultant heating the last 15 years of the SST and ENSO intensity periods, CO2 just was in the air along for the ride. This is all part of the 60 year patterns in the weather cycles, and can be explained as such. Now that the outer planet synod conjunctions of the Earth with Neptune and Uranus are moving into the fall and early winter, we can expect them to produce the increased snowfall events and cold polar blasts being seen in both hemispheres.
With the investigation of these methods of predicting the extreme effects of the weather patterns they produce, long range forecasts for both weather and climate will become possible. I am betting my life savings and the rest of the creative efforts of my life time on it.
^ This new stuff I have been keeping to myself mostly, the rest of the inner planet and lunar interactions is posted to my research blog side of the http://www.aerology.com site.
Richard Holle, still expanding and organizing better……
The “no trend in solar activity since 1979” argument is nonsense. At that time it had already increased to a very high level and stayed there. As long the Sun was contributing extra energy to the Earth’s climate, the temperature would still rise until it reached equilibrium. When I put a pot of water on my stove I don’t have to constantly increase the temperature of the burner to get the water to boil. All I have to do is set it at a high enough level so that it increases the temperature of the water.
The Sun was contributing at least 0.5-1 extra watt per square meter for 50 years. The result was that the Earth warmed by about 2/10ths of a percent during that time. Is there anything surprising about that?
In Scotland there is a tradition of taking a lump of coal with you while New Year ‘first footing’. Mind you, we are usually pissed at the time…
A question for all the solar boffins: We are now on the 9th consecutive sunspot-free day. Is this unusual so far in to a solar cycle?
Doesn’t anyone have an account over there so they can leave a comment pointing out his dissembling?
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. says: “Cinter Clause”
December 24, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Close. But . . .
The tradition of gift-giving from early christian times is attributed to the Greek Bishop, Nikolaos of Myra, part of modern-day Turkey. Other groups have different stories. But Nikolaos morphed into Saint Nicholas who the Dutch changed somewhat and named Sinterklass, a secretive night time giver of presents.
. . . only portable fuel available when that story was written . . .
I believe the Greek Bishop went around and placed good things (?), likely not coal, in shoes left outside for the purpose.
“And the Grinch thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick.” as he was preparing to steal the Christmas tree.
I try not to miss any opportunity to offer up the other Trenberth gem from the same Climategate thread:
“How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”
Thanks Kev. The words “robust” and “unequivocal” come to mind when I think of you. Merry Christmas, and as always, Cheers!
Jimmy Haigh says:
December 24, 2010 at 9:02 pm
A question for all the solar boffins: We are now on the 9th consecutive sunspot-free day. Is this unusual so far in to a solar cycle?
Yes, and the further into the cycle you go, the more unusual it gets.
It’s a matter of degree of unusual, so open up a can of adverbs. You’ll need ’em.
Such solar behavior is highly erratic and chaotic.
SC24 is about to crash, and that is my personal outlook on where it’s headed.
No wonder he rose to the esteemed lead author position.
Nice! 🙂
Does he really think he can disprove the theory that 20th century warming was caused by solar activity without looking at anything but the least active solar variable?
After 22 years of bad science is it a big step to take to do that? Sure he can.