Global Cooling – Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions

Guest post by Dr. Norman Page

1. Methods and Premises

My approach to climate science is based on Baconian empirical principles as presented in a series of earlier posts on this site (http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com)  notably:

6/18/10 Thirty Year Climate Forecast
7/19/12 30 Year Climate Forecast -2 year Update
10/30/12. Hurricane Sandy-Extreme Events and Global Cooling
11/18/12 Global Cooling Climate and Weather Forecasting
1/4/13 Response toWUWT post on Neutrons and 1970 cooling period.
1/22/13 Global Cooling Timing and Amount
2/18/13 Its the Sun Stupid – the Minor Significance of CO2

From the data and papers linked to on these earlier posts I have drawn on a few basic premises on which the new forecasts rely.


1 .The IPCC climate models on which the entire CO2 phobia depends ignore basic common sense and show poor scientific judgement and so were, and are, so badly structured as to be inherently useless for temperature prediction. Climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is probably  1 degree or less. The GH analogy conceptually misleads both the climate scientists and the general public. A much better analogy for the atmosphere is an holey insulating blanket with holes of varying size at differnt times according to the size and number of Tropcal Cyclone convection cells. These holes provide a substantial variable negative feedback to warming which is not included in the climate models. see Trenberth
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw31_proceedings/S6_05_Kevin_Trenberth_NCAR.ppt

2.The best way of distinguishing the main climate trends and drivers is by power spectrum and wavelet analysis of any time series which might be pertinent and correlation of these power spectra to distinguish forcings and feed backs.

3.A small number of time series are useful proxies for and can usefully and economically represent the trends in and the drivers of a large proportion of the past  global climate variabilty  and point the way to the likely future.It is not necessary to know the precise mechanisms and time series interactions which produce these time series observations in order to use them for successful prediction.

4.The present analysis which looks ahead to 2042 and 2106 is based on a few simple ideas and empirical observations..
a) There has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up 8+% .Global Temperatures have been declining since 2003-4 The period from 2003- 2005 represents a peak in both the 60 year PDO cycle and in a millennial solar cycle.
b) Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans and the more extreme regional high frequency variability of the land data the Global SST data are the most useful representation of the overall global climate trend.
c)Not withstanding b) above  and indeed because of the greater variability  of the NH temperatures  the currently most useful representation of temperature trends over the last millennial solar cycle for practical and conceptual purposes  ie  hockey stick or non hockey stick is
Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 fig5 at:
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf    see Fig1 below.  -  describe it how you will

d) It is not unreasonable to suggest that temperature trends  from 2000 – 3000 AD  could  well repeat the pattern of trends from 1000- 2000. AD
e)The temperature trends in the first +/- 100 years after the peak are likely to be the reverse of the trends in the +/- 100 years before the  peak and the Hadsst3 data set  Figs 2 and 3 is a generally accepted representation of the latter trend.
f)The main climate driver is the sun . Incoming solar radiation  is modulated by the Milankovitch orbital cycles and by variations in  solar “activity” manifested by changes in GCR flux at the earth,by changes in EUV radiation, changes in the frequency  and energy  of CMEs and  Proton events ,changes in solar wind speed  and changes in TSI.Incredibly ,only the small TSI change is considered in the IPCC models-.The change in albedo caused by the GCR- cloud iris effect and the change in atmospheric chemistry  caused by UV  variations are probably more important than TSI itself.
g)A lunar influence is also evident in the temperature power spectrum.
h )The Neutron count can act as a useful proxy for solar “activity”  particularly as the instrumental data can be projected  back via  the  10Be flux for millions of years..

2.Analysis and Forecast.

This post provides a  revised version of  the post on 1/22/13  “Global Cooling Timing and Amount (NH)” In this earlier post future temperature changes were estimated with reference to Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012 fig5

FIG 1

Here I make the same assumption that the current temperature peak is an approximate repeat of the +/- 1000 AD solar cycle related temperature peak (Fig1 )  .The simplest  assumption for trends following the peak is that the downslope  to about 2650 AD  may well look like the downslope from 1000 to1650.Naturally predictions beyond the 30 years which coincides with a PDO declining temperature trend would be increasingly more speculative.
Using the HADSST  3 data as a go-by  (figs 2 and 3) produces the following estimates .

Fig 2

Hadsst 3(blue) and 2 (red)  Feb 2013 from  http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_February_2013.pdf

The rising trend peaks out at 2003-5  Fig2..A rise occurred from 1975 – 2003-5. We might therefore look for  a similar cooling from 2005 to 2035  The average peak temperature has  an Hadsst 3 anomaly of  about  +0.38 . The rise from 1975 was from about -0.15 to +0.38 = +0.53 . and thus we might look for a similar decline in global SSTs temperatures to – 0.15 by 2035. This would coincide well with the current 30 year cooling phase of the PDO. More speculatively we might similarly estimate a recovery to + 0.1  by  about 2060 followed by  further Global cooling to – 0.5 by 2100 – equivalent to the 1910 temperature.
See the Hadley chart  Fig3 below from http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3.pdf

Fig 3

Of course these numbers relate to the general trend- during the downtrend we would expect higher frequency variabilty in temperature highs and lows  to the same extent as seen in Fig 2. but both would generally decline  until 2035.

These forecasts and trends are generally consistent with the broad trends   in the Oulu neutron count since 1964  Fig4  which I suggest may well be considerd as a  key Solar Activity Proxy  –  SAP.  It seems  that there is a +/-  12 year lag between the SAP and the temperature. see  Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://www.clim-past.net/8/765/2012/cp-8-765-2012.pdf

The decline in the count minima from solar cycles 20-22  ie from 1969 – 1991 corresponds roughly to the temperature rise from the early 1980s to  the 2003-5 temperature peak . It also matches well with the increase in the count of hours of sunshine during the same period dicussed by Wang et al
 http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/9581/2012/acp-12-9581-2012.pdf
which may well represent an open phase of the iris effect.

The relatively higher counts at the cycle 23 and especially the cycle 24 neutron minima troughs (solar cycle SSN peaks) suggest a continuing downtrend in temperatures to  at least 2024.
There was a secular change in the related Ap index in 2004-5 which could presage a sharp temperature drop in about 2016-17 and the Oulu data show an increase in the neutron count also in  2004- 5  which  might indicate the same thing and which is alredy built in to the system.

Fig 4  

It is possible that the record 20th century peak in the 2009 count might indicate a real cold snap in 2021-22.

3. Summary

  1.  Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
  2.  Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
  3.  Built in cooling trend until  at least 2024
  4.  Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035  - 0.15
  5.  Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100  – 0.5
  6.  General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
  7.  By 2650  earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
  8.  The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial  - they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
  9. Warning !!  There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

============================================================

Dr. Norman Page has a  PhD in Geology, and runs a consulting business in  Houston, TX

About these ads

71 thoughts on “Global Cooling – Methods and Testable Decadal Predictions

  1. “It is possible that the record 20th century peak in the 2009 count might indicate a real cold snap in 2021-22.”

    cold snap, n: (Earth Sciences / Physical Geography) a sudden short spell of cold weather Collins English Dictionary

    It is imprecise to refer to anything longer than a few days as “a cold snap.”

  2. I fear it may well be a best case scenario – but hope you are right. The Met Office it seems are now saying the UK (the world’s best predictive thermometer) has had the coldest spring in 200 years. This makes it a Dalton Spring when the globe sits atop the peak of both solar cycle 24 and the AMO. It is downhill all the way now with just a couple of years of other natural variations left to stave off the abyss.

    Stay Cool!

  3. Why aren’t there more papers documenting the lunar impact on temperatures. It seems like there would exist straightforward datasets to establish this correlation? We can correlate the sun with temperature very effectively.

  4. Now this is scary. Sorry warmists/environistas but your sky is really going to fall.
    I wonder how Al is going to make money on it.

  5. For those of us in the UK this does not sound good. If this is best case scenario, and a Maunder Minimum is possible, how far away is a full scale ice age?
    Is it technically possible to reverse the albedo trap which would cause an ice age? Probably not, how do you darken millions of square miles of snow?

  6. While a more realistic outlook than the warmists provide, it is not any more welcome. I think I might emigrate.

  7. Interesting but problematic. Weather, and by logical extension climate, is a non-linear dynamic system in the precise mathematical sense. Specifically, it contains feedback loops (non-linear) like water vapor and clouds, and these have time lags (dynamic). All such systems are mathematically chaotic, as meteorologist Ed Lorentz showed many decades ago. That means the math models have certain inherent features. One is sensitive dependence on initial conditions (the butterfly effect) which means that no matter how accurate your initial inputs, predictions soon go awry from eventual reality. CAGW is an example. Second is onset of ‘chaos’ that is fully deterministic yet mathematically ‘random’ and unpredictable. Although in N-1 dimensions, ‘chaos’ follows strange attractors. milankivitch cycle oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods may be one such manifestation of a climate strange attractor.
    But this means that signal/ noise extraction techniques (power spectra, wavelets, Fourier transforms, high and low pass filters…) have little hope of shedding much actual light on decadal or centennial climate forecasts.
    The best that can be hoped for is better input data (satellite temps replacing error prone ground stations with all the problems documented by WUWT), or better models with more precise physics at finer resolution. The former suggest less warming, the later suggest less sensitivity.
    But it is in the essence of chaos theory that neither improvement direction, nor your methods, can reliably predict a tipping point into a next Little Ice Age (or into a Big one).
    Regards

  8. I predict that within a decade, alternative energy sources will have begun to replace fossil fuels with their concommitant contribution of CO2 for warmth and increased foodstuff production. As a consequence, those benefits will start to reverse, causing more problems world-wide. The next two decades should prove to be very difficult for humans, especially those already living in subsistence conditions.

  9. Dr. Page, Robert Felix, has written about talks with the late Jack Sauers. Mr. Sauers claimed that, that ice ages begin first in the European area, then extend to the northeastern part of North America, and finally to the more western parts of North America. is Mr. Felix’s memory correct and if so where could a layman find such information? Thank you for your article.

  10. When she [Leona Marshall Libby] and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now though the mid-1980s. “Then,” Dr Libby added, “we see a warming trend (by about a quarter of 1 degree Fahrenheit) globally to around the year 2000. And then it will get really cold – if we can believe our projections. This has to be tested.”
    How cold? “Easily one or two degrees,” She replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees. It only takes 10 degree to bring on an Ice Age.” St. Petersburg Times Jan 1, 1979

  11. i NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE USE OF CLIMATE MODELS SINCE IF CLIMATE CHANGES FALLS UNDER CHAOS THEORY AND ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA COMPUTER PROGRAMS CANNOT PREDICT FUTURE EVENTS OF CHAOTIC SYSTEMS .THE EMPERICAL APPROACH IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL WAY TO PREDICT FUTURE CLIMATE EVENTS WITHIN PROBABLE LIMITS. BOBPRUD

    [Reply: Please, do not use all-caps. Thanks. — mod.]

  12. This has cheered me up no end. If this has to be the price we pay, to see the cAGW camp followers put out to grass, I’d best see that my family learns to use snow shoes.

  13. It’ll take quite some time before I’ve parsed all your arguments and data. But let me say from the outset that I’m skeptical.

  14. I’m freezing my butt off ploughing through ice on the river Elbe when it should be warm spring by now. It may be a blip, but even my beliefs as a self confessed warmy are being sorely tried.

  15. The heading says “Testable Decadal Predictions”

    Is there any way of testing them, other than waiting a decade?

  16. Robert R. Prudhomme says:
    April 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    i NEVER UNDERSTOOD….

    Stay off the marijuana.

  17. North and South Hemisphere often move in a counter-phase, hence it is more appropriate to look initially at each separately, and if common factors are found, then to draw an appropriate global conclusion.
    For some time I have studied the N. H.’s natural variability; various data are pointing to cooling in the forthcoming decades.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-NV.htm

  18. RockyRoad says:
    April 2, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    I predict that within a decade, alternative energy sources will have begun to replace fossil fuels with their concommitant contribution of CO2 for warmth and increased foodstuff production. As a consequence, those benefits will start to reverse, causing more problems world-wide. The next two decades should prove to be very difficult for humans, especially those already living in subsistence conditions.

    Given the laws of physics and chemistry and the energy density of green energy sources, I don’t see large scale implementation of the green energy sources except through legislative or regulatory fiat. They just aren’t competitive on the market, although I do expect them to become more competitive with each passing year.

    The thing of it is, there is more oil and gas available than anybody ever dreamed of and each year the technology to extract it becomes more affordable as well. O

  19. Mike Jonas says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    The heading says “Testable Decadal Predictions”

    Is there any way of testing them, other than waiting a decade?
    ————————————————————————————

    No, but a decade is far more reasonable to “wait and see” than the vague 50 – 100 years (when most of us will be dead) that the Warmistas like to use!

  20. “My approach to climate science is based on Baconian empirical principles…”

    “Empirical’? I’m sorry, Dr. I’m afraid you’ll NEVER make true ‘Climate Scientist’. Haven’t you heard, modification of empirical data to create the result you’re looking for is the ‘new normal’ in Climate Science. Bacon is probably spinning in his grave over the new meme for Climate Science. “Observation doesn’t match theory? Change the observations.”

  21. Please remove all testable predictions – climatology is exclusively a belief and guilt based discipline. Gavin.

  22. An interesting quote from Monckton in a piece defending Easterbrook:

    “As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, I can also report that the IPCC itself plans to publish a graph showing that the predictions of global warming in all four of its previous multi-thousand-page quinquennial Assessment Reports have proven to be enormous exaggerations. The computer models it uses have failed.”

    I’m not sure if this information is dated, but the planned retraction by the IPCC (if correct) is news to me.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/04/01/former-thatcher-science-advisor-un-ipcc-reviewer-lord-christopher-monckton-weighs-in-on-warmists-smear-of-geologist-dr-don-easterbrook-dr-easterbrook-has-been-libeled-it-is-the-rent-seeking/

  23. Is the 2650 date correct or typo. Based on Page’s timeline I could see a logical progression to 2150, so the jump to 2650 for another mini ice age seems to be better explained.

  24. This prediction of a possible couple degree cooling scares me a hellova lot more than warmists prediction of a possible couple degree warming.

  25. Is the 2650 date correct or typo. Based on Page’s timeline I could see a logical progression to 2150, so the jump to 2650 for another mini ice age needs to be better explained.

  26. The centre panel showing rate of change of SST says pretty much the same thing as Norman Page says in detail here:

    this is based on a simple fitting of a three cosine plus fixed rate of change model, explained in more detail in the article.

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/15/on-the-adjustments-to-the-hadsst3-data-set-2/

    The article was looking at Hadley adjustment and was not intended as a projection or forcast but it remarkably similar to what N.P. says here. Scafetta’s work is very similar.

    Met.Office Hadley recently reviewed their 10 year forcast into a tive year forecast of no significant change. Why did not they show the usual 10 year forecast.

    a) because they no longer have the certainty they previously claimed to have in their models
    b) because thier new model shows after five years it will get dramatically colder as N.P. and other have suggested and they can’t face that kind of about turn all in one hit.

  27. With 7B people on Earth substantial cooling would be truly deadly on a mass scale. The silver lining is the looming population inflection point and subsequent decline may slightly lead the cooling.

  28. Bill Marsh,

    Hey, I just had an idea for a new energy source. Hook up electric generators to the corpses of the early pioneers of science. If we need more electricity, just give a climate “scientist” a public audience. ;-)

  29. Keep a close eye on the sizes positions and intensities of the permanent climate zones plus the degree of meridionality and equatorward positioning of the jet streams.

    As long as they remain as meridional / equatorward as they are now then the increase in cloud cover will reduce solar energy absorbed by the oceans which will slowly cool.

    The start of the switch from overall warming to overall cooling was clear to me by 2000 which was when I first noticed that jet stream zonality and poleward climate zone drifting were no longer intensifying.

    These are multidecadal and multicentennial changes that underlie all the other climate periodicities and appear to be solar induced.

    If the cause of cloudiness changes is simply the change in the length of the lines of air mass mixing when the jets become more meridional then we have a far simpler chain of causation to work from.

    Watch the net position of the ITCZ. It should have drifted a little closer to the equator in recent years from its late 20th century net position north of the equator.

    Observe the Sahara desert. It should have drifted a little towards the equator over recent years.

    The slope of the tropopause height from equator to poles is a giant global see saw with the slope being affected from the top down as a result of solar variability affecting atmospheric chemistry differentially between equator and poles.

    Changing that tropopause height gradient allows the entire global air circulation pattern to slide to and fro latitudinally beneath the tropopause as a negative system response to the solar forcing.

    A similar process always occurs as a negative system response to ANY forcing element.

  30. I think there’s a sun-climate connection, affecting different parts of the world a bit different, but generally cooling at low solar activity, and vice versa. I’ll put my money on Landcheidt’s theory. It predict like 30 years of low solar activity? Do that theory include like a Maunder Minimum?

    I guess no solar cycle theory predicts when the new large ice age starts. That’s processes in the atmosphere. One Dalton Minimum til I’m 75. Brrr! :(

  31. Thanks for the very clear post Dr. Page, but colour me unconvinced. The climate is a large, complex beast and sceptical old me tends to be wary of claims that *any* ‘control knob’ exists which allows acccurate forecasts.

    Having said that, I’d bet a few quatloos that it will get colder in the next few years. :-)

  32. Jimbo – I do not understand your comment . I worked in Aerospace for 31 years including the VIKING trip to mars . We did not load the spacecraft with a computer program and by itself guide the
    spacecraft to MARS but we provided periodic updates to the guidance by means of attitude ,velocity,and accelerometer gyros along with star sighting eqpt .If we had used the program alone the spacecraft would have gone somewhere else then MARS . Also do you remeber when
    Edward Lorentz (the original founder of using computers for weather ) loaded two separate super computers with the same climate data to 50 points of accuracy and let the programs run with a totally different prediction for the weather. How do CLIMATE MODELS differr from these examples?
    PS – I have a degree in mathematics and have worked in computers and software since the 1960s.
    bobprud

  33. more soylent green! says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm


    RockyRoad says:
    April 2, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    I predict that within a decade, alternative energy sources will have begun to replace fossil fuels with their concommitant contribution of CO2 for warmth and increased foodstuff production.
    ….
    Given the laws of physics and chemistry and the energy density of green energy sources, I don’t see large scale implementation of the green energy sources except through legislative or regulatory fiat.

    I said “alternative” but I didn’t say “green” (although some might argue it qualifies). The replacement for fossil fuels won’t be solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, fission or fusion.

    There’s only one left.

    And although fossil fuels are far more abundand than we’ve been led to believe, as you correctly state, they will still be relegated to petrochemical feedstock and not much more.

    (Hint–NASA is designing rocket ships of the future based on this energy source.)

  34. Robert R. Prudhomme says:
    April 2, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Jimbo – I do not understand your comment . I worked in Aerospace for 31 years including the VIKING trip to mars . We did not load the spacecraft with a computer program and by itself guide the
    spacecraft to MARS but we provided periodic updates to the guidance by means of attitude ,velocity,and accelerometer gyros along with star sighting eqpt .If we had used the program alone the spacecraft would have gone somewhere else then MARS . Also do you remeber when
    Edward Lorentz (the original founder of using computers for weather ) loaded two separate super computers with the same climate data to 50 points of accuracy and let the programs run with a totally different prediction for the weather. How do CLIMATE MODELS differr from these examples?

    PS – I have a degree in mathematics and have worked in computers and software since the 1960s.
    bobprud

    The climate models do not differ from the examples except in quantity. The climate ‘scientists’ have come up with a clever wheeze. They run multiple climate models (to the limit of time and funding say about 50) with slightly varied start parameters and call the resulting spaghetti an ensemble – then (you will like this part) they average the result!! as that is bound to work isn’t it !? Thus they demonstrate that they are both mathematically and logically challenged and do not have Lorentz’ understanding of chaotic systems. But it produces impressive funding politician impressing spaghetti graphics, and they can do linear projections of the averages of the chaotic model output (wince). Emphasizing still more their lack of a grasp of the fundamentals of chaos theory.

  35. AGU Chapman Conference on the Causes and Consequences of the Extended Solar Minimum between Solar Cycles 23 and 24 (4CESM)
    08 April 2013 — 12 April 2013, Key Largo, Florida, USA

    “The most recent solar minimum, solar cycle 23-24 minimum, was unusually long (266 spotless days in 2008, the most since 1913), and the magnetic field at the solar poles was approximately 40% weaker than the last cycle; and unusually complex (the solar wind was characterized by a warped heliospheric current sheet, HCS, and fast-wind streams at low latitudes: the fast-wind threads the ecliptic more commonly in 2008 than 1996.) This complexity resulted in many effects observed from Sun to Earth, with many observations indicating unusual conditions on the Sun, in the heliosphere, and in the magnetosphere, ionosphere, and upper atmosphere of the Earth.

    This remarkable set of conditions provide the scientific community with an exceptional opportunity to assess the nature and structure of a very quiet Sun, and an upper atmosphere relatively devoid of solar influences, helping to provide a better understanding of the relative roles of solar activity and internal variability in the dynamics of the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Such an understanding requires a multidisciplinary approach.

    The main goal of the conference is to bring together the solar, heliospheric, magnetospheric, upper atmosphere, and ionospheric communities to debate and discuss interdisciplinary work and reach a better understanding of the nature and structure of a very quiet Sun, and of an upper atmosphere relatively devoid of solar influences, and in doing so, to help clarify the role of solar activity in the dynamics and variability of the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere relative to the internal variations.”

    http://chapman.agu.org/solarminimum/

  36. Under your point “1″, I believe the biggest error is not differentiating between convective cooling and radiative cooling. All cooling is radiative, but a large portion occurs from water (ice) droplets from high in the atmosphere. CO2 would not interfere with this mechanism. An interesting observation is that Oklahoma set an all-time cold temperature record 2 years ago. This is purely a function of radiative cooling at night. Since we are close to a doubling of CO2 during the temperature records, this should have been impossible.

  37. I would also expect cooling. Based on current observations and my understanding of the mechanisms and what happened in the past, I would expect gradual significant cooling followed by a Heinrich event. I will provide more information when there is unequivocal evidence of gradual significant cooling.

    The following are past and current observations which are interesting.

    Linked to below, is the Greenland Ice sheet proxy temperature data for the last 12,000 years. The Greenland ice temperature date shows the so called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (named after the paleoclimate discovers of the cycle) which is a cycle of warming and cooling with a periodicity of 1450 years plus or minus 500 years.

    It appears, the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) temperature cycle is driven by a solar magnetic cycle change, as there are cosmogenic isotope changes at each and every D-O cycle. What is missing is a physical mechanism to explain how a solar magnetic cycle change can cause the planet to cyclically warm and cool, sometimes abruptly cool.

    I become interested in what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle 15 years ago and have followed all related research including the most recent discoveries and unresolved controversies.

    In the last 10 years, the geomagnetic field specialists have found that geomagnetic field changes correlate with past climate changes. What delayed the geomagnetic field analysis (consensus on the finding), is there is no explanation as to why the geomagnetic field is changing cyclically and as the geomagnetic field changes are significantly faster than is possible with the current assumed model for how the geomagnetic field is generated.
    There are burn marks on the surface of the planet (In the Northern hemisphere at multiple sites in North America and in Europe), that correlate with largest most rapid climate change, the Younger Dryas (the Younger Dryas is a special abrupt climate change event that is called a Heinrich event, again named after a paleoclimatic discover) planetary cooling event (planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cool with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than 10 years). The largest geomagnetic field change in the last 12000 years correlates with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.

    The geomagnetic field intensity increases during the interglacial periods and drops in the glacial periods following a 100 kyr cycle.

    Prior to around 1996 planetary cloud cover and temperature tracked galactic cosmic rays GCR (high speed protons which are believed to be generated by super nova which strike the atmosphere creating MUONs (heavy electrons). The MUONs in turn create ions in the atmosphere. The GCR changes increase or decrease the amount of low level clouds and change the optical properties of clouds in specific regions of the planet, the magnitude and orientation of the geomagnetic field is also a factor. There are interesting series of papers that were published in the last 10 years concerning this subject.)

    Starting sometime in 1996, there was a sudden reduction in planetary clouds. Planetary clouds still tracked GCR however there was roughly a 1% reduction in planetary clouds.

    Starting in 1996, the geomagnetic North pole suddenly started to move. Prior to 1996 the geomagnetic field wandered moving year by year roughly 15 km in no fixed direction. The North geomagnetic pole is now moving at 45 km/year in a fixed direction, causing a 1 degree change in magnetic north every 5 years which requires airports in the Northern Hemisphere to re-number their runways as the standard system is to number the run related to alignment with magnetic North. (Prior to 1996, magnetic north did not change.)

    Analysis if the geomagnetic field in the Northern Hemisphere has found there is an increase in magnetic field anomalies from 2 to 6. Theoretical the appearance of field anomalies is what occurs when there is geomagnetic excursion, however, there is no concern among the specialists as based on the theoretical model it takes 1000 to 2000 years a geomagnetic excursion to occur, however there is proxy data of extraordinarily large and rapid geomagnetic field changes which have no explanation.

    The Southern geomagnetic pole is not moving, however, there is a very large geomagnetic anomaly in the South Atlantic where the geomagnetic field is 30% weaker than the main field. There is cold climate spot that is aligned with South Atlantic geomagnetic anomaly which is supports Svensmark’s cloud modulation theory.

  38. William Astley You say “The geomagnetic field intensity increases during the interglacial periods and drops in the glacial periods following a 100 kyr cycle.”
    Do you have a reference or link for this statement – Thanks in anticipation.

  39. FYI:
    Nelson, Fraser. “It’s the Cold, Not Global Warming, That We Should Be Worried About.” Telegraph.co.uk, March 28, 2013, sec. elderhealth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

    No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive.

    Anonymous. “A Sensitive Matter.” Economics. The Economist, March 30, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the (ex) head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

  40. FYI:
    Nelson, Fraser. “It’s the Cold, Not Global Warming, That We Should Be Worried About.” Telegraph.co.uk, March 28, 2013, sec. elderhealth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

    No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive.

    Anonymous. “A Sensitive Matter.” Economics. The Economist, March 30, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the (ex) head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

  41. I too think it will cool, but probably not for as long or as drastically as some may think. Just about the time everyone is telling us the oncoming ice age is our fault somehow… it will warm back up:D

  42. Louis Nettles (@tmitsss) says: April 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    How cold? “Easily one or two degrees,” She replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees. It only takes 10 degree to bring on an Ice Age.” St. Petersburg Times Jan 1, 1979

    Perhaps even less!

    Schmittner on his recent paper on the LGM:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/more-on-the-sensitive-climate-question/

    Earth was much different during the last glacial maximum (LGM). Imagine huge ice sheets covering North America and northern Europe, glaciers in the Alps and other mountain regions descending much further down the valleys into the low lands, Europe was essentially without forests and tundra covered much of the northern Hemisphere land masses. Sea level was 120 meters lower than today since more water was locked up as ice on land.

    The atmosphere had only 185 ppm [parts per million] CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide were also lower. There was lots of dust in the air.

    However, sea surface temperatures on average were only about 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than today. (I was much surprised by how small that cooling was, when I first saw the data.) We have estimated that air temperature near the surface, globally averaged, was 3-4 degrees C. (5-7 degrees F.) cooler than today.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/more-on-the-sensitive-climate-question/

  43. In reply to
    Dr Norman Page says:
    April 2, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    William Astley You say “The geomagnetic field intensity increases during the interglacial periods and drops in the glacial periods following a 100 kyr cycle.”
    Do you have a reference or link for this statement – Thanks in anticipation.

    Hello,
    Yes.
    William: The following are two papers that note there is a 100,000 year cycle in the earth’s geomagnetic field and that the geomagnetic field is abruptly changing. The analysis is confused however as the researchers do not understand the fundamental mechanisms and there are multiple fields involved. The sun is causing the geomagnetic field changes. The orientation of the planet (eccentricity of orbit, hemispheric timing of perihelion –whether the Northern or Southern Hemisphere is closest to the sun at perihelion, and the tilt of the planet) and whether there are insulating ice sheets on the planet when the solar magnetic cycle restarts determines how the solar cycle restart affects the geomagnetic field. Orbital configuration is currently ideal to cause a geomagnetic excursion (Southern hemisphere is closest to the sun at perihelion and the tilt of the planet close to its range minimum.)
    I can with some certainty make the assertion that the sun is causing the geomagnetic field changes. I have looked at all connected anomalies; starting with the assumption that there must be a physical explanation for all anomalies and then searched for anomalies and any specialist work that had been done to explain the anomalies. The next step was to develop the mechanisms to explain what is happening. Roughly 10 years ago I started researching astrophysics theory and anomalies, looking for a physical explanation as to how and why the sun could change in a manner to cause what is observed on the earth. There are sets of astronomical anomalies that are related and explained by a stellar (Very massive collapsed object, see the MECO quasar set of papers for example.) physical mechanism which would enable the sun to occasionally cause burn marks on the planet during the Heinrich events. There are other solar system observations that are explained the same mechanism phenomena such as the anomalous orientation of the Uranus and Neptune magnetic fields (the magnetic field of the two planets are not aligned with the planet’s rotational axis and the center of their geomagnetic field is off set for the core of each planet.)

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5564/2435

    Orbital Influence on Earth’s Magnetic Field: 100,000-Year Periodicity in Inclination
    A continuous record of the inclination and intensity of Earth’s magnetic field, during the past 2.25 million years, was obtained from a marine sediment core of 42 meters in length. This record reveals the presence of 100,000-year periodicity in inclination and intensity, which suggests that the magnetic field is modulated by orbital eccentricity. The correlation between inclination and intensity shifted from antiphase to in-phase, corresponding to a magnetic polarity change from reversed to normal. To explain the observation, we propose a model in which the strength of the geocentric axial dipole field varies with 100,000-year periodicity, whereas persistent nondipole components do not.

    http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/

    Is the geodynamo process intrinsically unstable?
    Recent palaeomagnetic studies suggest that excursions of the geomagnetic field, during which the intensity drops suddenly by a factor of 5^10 and the local direction changes dramatically, are more common than previously expected. The `normal’ state of the geomagnetic field, dominated by an axial dipole, seems to be interrupted every 30 to 100 kyr; it may not therefore be as stable as we thought…. …Recent studies suggest that the Earth’s magnetic field has fallen dramatically in magnitude and changed direction repeatedly since the last reversal 700 kyr ago (Langereis et al. 1997; Lund et al. 1998). These important results paint a rather different picture of the long-term behaviour of the field from the conventional one of a steady dipole reversing at random intervals: instead, the field appears to spend up to 20 per cent of its time in a weak, non-dipole state (Lund et al. 1998).

    William:
    This paper notes there correlation of past climate cycles D-O cycles and Heinrich events with geomagnetic field changes (There are two types (1) Archeomagnetic jerks where the field inclination abruptly changes 15 degrees and (2) A range of failed geomagnetic excursions where is sudden onset of a geomagnetic excursion which abruptly reduces the intensity of the field. The paper hypothesis that climate change (ice sheet formation which in turn affects planetary ‘inertia’ which in turn affects the core in some manner which in turn causes the cyclic geomagnetic field changes is not correct. The geomagnetic field changes are caused by a solar magnetic cycle change that occurs when the solar magnetic cycle generating mechanism has been interrupted.

    http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/apr252003/1105.pdf

    Earth’s moment of inertia during glaciation
    The effect of changes in the Earth’s moment of inertia during glaciation on geomagnetic polarity excursions and reversals: Implications for Quaternary chronology

    Geomagnetic polarity reversals and excursions in the Quaternary correlate well with interglacial-to-glacial transitions and glacial maxima. It is suggested that this relationship results from interactions between the Earth’s mantle and core that accompany decreases in the Earth’s moment of inertia during ice accumulation, which weaken the geomagnetic field in order to try to counter the decrease in differential rotation between the mantle and inner core that is being forced. In the Late Pleistocene, geomagnetic excursions directly correlate with brief phases of rapid ice growth that accompany falls in global sea-level, notably during the Younger Dryas stage, Dansgaard–Oeschger interstadials 5 and 10 that precede the rapid melting events during Heinrich events H3 and H4, and during the transitions between oxygen isotope stages 5c-5b, and 5e-5d. It is proposed that similar relationships between instabilities in climate and the geomagnetic field also typefied the Middle Pleistocene. As a result of the transfer of some of the mass of the oceans into polar ice sheets, the climate instabilities that initiate these rapid ice accumulations redistribute angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy between the Earth’s mantle and inner core. These changes weaken the Earth’s magnetic field, facilitating geomagnetic excursions and also causing enhanced production of cosmogenic nuclides, including 14C. The subsequent phases of rapid ice melting, Heinrich events, reverse this effect: strengthening the field. This explanation, of forcing of geomagnetic excursions by climate instabilities, provides a natural explanation for why, during the Middle-Late Pleistocene, excursions have been numerous but none has developed into a polarity reversal: the characteristic duration of the climate instabilities is too short.

    William: A couple of MECO papers (MECO theory is related to what physically happens and what stops a super massive object from collapsing.) The MECO papers were written to explain anomalous quasar observations however the same basic theory line extrapolated applies for collapsed stars and explains the magnetic field for magtars, pulsars, and so on.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0602453.pdf

  44. I often caution people about using any one period as evidence of a changing climate. That is why I like this graph that uses several periods to show the change in trend over the last 30-40 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1994/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010/to:2013/trend

  45. Dr Norman Page says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    I should think 5 years would give a good indication .If we’re not averaging 0.1 to 0.2 cooler by 2018 I’d need to think again.

    I think you need to realize that averaging disparate temperature readings gives you nothing meaningful. Intensive variable…

  46. RockyRoad says:
    April 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    more soylent green! says:
    April 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    RockyRoad says:
    April 2, 2013 at 12:06 pm
    I predict that within a decade, alternative energy sources will have begun to replace fossil fuels with their concommitant contribution of CO2 for warmth and increased foodstuff production.
    ….
    Given the laws of physics and chemistry and the energy density of green energy sources, I don’t see large scale implementation of the green energy sources except through legislative or regulatory fiat.
    I said “alternative” but I didn’t say “green” (although some might argue it qualifies). The replacement for fossil fuels won’t be solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, fission or fusion.

    There’s only one left.

    And although fossil fuels are far more abundand than we’ve been led to believe, as you correctly state, they will still be relegated to petrochemical feedstock and not much more.

    (Hint–NASA is designing rocket ships of the future based on this energy source.)

    Well, I guess the answer is not hooking fat people up to treadmills, then.

  47. Jon theTechnologist says:
    April 2, 2013 at 11:38 am

    Now this is scary. Sorry warmists/environistas but your sky is really going to fall.
    I wonder how Al is going to make money on it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    He is investing in companies developing gas (fracking) and nuclear power. The continued propaganda is so the money shift can be made by those in the know while the Main Street chmps are left holding useless Windmill and Solar panel stock.

    We are already getting the ‘signals’ of the change from the MSM and Hansen’s retirement. It remains to be seen if the USA will go for a carbon tax despite reality.

  48. Here are a few questions I would ask:

    1. What is the probability that the Sahara Desert becomes ‘the breadbasket of the world’ if a new Maunder Minimum were to set in for decades/centuries?
    2. How could mankind help that to happen if it were necessary for humanity to feed itself?
    3. Would the Australian interior become similarly fertile??
    4. What is the feasibility of growing healthy crops under glass and light if sunlight intensity and air temperatures were to drop?
    5. Would Northern Europe’s best response to a prolonged temperature drop be a regrowth of a Boreal forest allied to mass emigration to warmer climes??
    6. What are the implications in terms of preparing soils for crop changes for more southern US states if they must take up the slack for grain production should more northerly states become too cold to continue??
    7. Will Southern Europe precipitation patterns increase agricultural productivity or merely suggest a shift to a different portfolio of crop production?

    My assumption is that human beings have survived ice ages before and therefore they will do so again.

    It’s merely a question of working out where, how and for how long.

  49. Magnus says:
    April 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    …. It predict like 30 years of low solar activity? Do that theory include like a Maunder Minimum? Yes

    I guess no solar cycle theory predicts when the new large ice age starts.

    The theory is called the Millancovitch cycles At this point the real debate is whether we are looking at glaciation like the five out of the last six interglacials or just hovering at the edge as the oddball interglacial did before warming back up.

    SEE: The Antithesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/

    On “Trap-Speed”, ACC and the SNR: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/on-“trap-speed-acc-and-the-snr/

    The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

    Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/can-we-predict-the-duration-of-an-interglacial/

    The big problem whether or not a glaciation is in the cards is
    #1) The over all cooling for centuries

    #2)The solar insolation at the point between the two stable states of Cold or warm thanks to the Millancovitch cycles. That state seems to be unstable and can cause wild climate swings.

    From On “Trap-Speed”, ACC and the SNR

    “… the data indicate that cooling into the Younger Dryas occurred in a few prominent decade(s)-long steps, whereas warming at the end of it occurred primarily in one especially large step … of about 8°C in about 10 years and was accompanied by a doubling of snow accumulation in 3 years; most of the accumulation-rate change occurred in 1 year….”

    “The ice age ended in one year” according to Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, professor at the Center for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen:

    “We have analysed the transition from the last ice age to our current warm interglacial period and there is such an abrupt change in climate that it is as if someone just pushed a button”….

    So far the Holocene has been a nice well behaved interglacial. The geologic record says this is an exception and not the norm and switches in climate can happen with in a decade.

    …By 2002, we have this from the National Research Council:

    “Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps.”

    “The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers.” (“Abrupt Climate Change – Inevitable Surprises”, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002, ISBN: 0-309-51284-0, 244 pages, Richard B. Alley, chair).

    This is the field we should have concentrated Climate Research Money on instead of chasing CAGW. With luck we wake-up before Mother Nature slaps us upside the head with a temperature change that will scare the pants off every politician and climate scientist who have been profiting from CAGW.

    I am collecting feathers…

  50. “There was a secular change in the related Ap index in 2004-5 which could presage a sharp temperature drop in about 2016-17..”

    There will be long and intense periods of low land temperatures then anyway from what will be happening real-time with solar activity.

  51. Carbon taxes are MASS MURDER. Fuel price floors are MASS MURDER. Emissions trading shcemes are MASS MURDER. “Research” on “global warming” is MASS MURDER. Global warming alarmism is MASS MURDER. ‘Nuff said.

    Our Judge-Jury-and-Executioner-in Chief orders the summary execution of an alleged terrorist. Well, accodring to some AGW scaremongers, skeptics are “terrorists.” More MASS MURDER coming?

    I wouldn’t count on this being too far-fetched. After all, the JJAEIC has now lost his virginity, so what’s to stop him from doing it again?

  52. Gail Combs says:
    April 3, 2013 at 10:31 am …

    One point that is often not emphasized by researchers in geology, archaeology and similar field sciences is that quite often there are very abrupt punctuations. The meteorite impact theory for the end of the Cretaceous emerged in part because of the iridium anomaly, which, regardless of where it was found, and regardless of how rapidly sediments had been accumulating at the time the iridium was deposited, was always found as an extremely thin stratum, implying a very narrow window of time for that transition between the Cretaceous and Paleogene. When geologists start to hem and hah about just how short a duration is, they are worried because they are stuck with a “catastrophically” rapid change, and catastrophes tend be anathema in uniformitarian sciences where change is consider to be the result of steady incremental accumulation of incremental changes. A giant meteor or comet impact however, is a member of a set of events that collectively are a natural process, but which individually are also catastrophes. Because of the power distribution these events, they can range from local to global in effect. It gives an out to a natural explanation for a catastrophe whose short time span and profound effects would otherwise have a traditional geologist in tears and stuttering

  53. more soylent green! says April 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Given the laws of physics and chemistry and the energy density of green energy sources, I don’t see large scale implementation of the green energy sources except through legislative or regulatory fiat. They just aren’t competitive on the market, although I do expect them to become more competitive with each passing year.

    Ya know, we went down this road once before, under Carter; one might assume given the foregoing that you have no knowledge of that period and are unaware of the effort in the area of so-called ‘renewables’ … years ago driving past the Mobil Technology Company facility in Dallas (used to be on the west side of Midway south of Spring Valley but has now been razed) out in back were some of the research activities (wind and solar projects) resulting from the Carter-era ‘alternative energy’ initiatives … and where are we today? Wind is still intermittent, provides no reliable substitute for coal/nuclear, solar still bears a relatively steep buy-in price esp. when contrasted with the cost of base-load coal plant electricity production …

    (1) Primary Resources: Proposed Energy PolicyOther Primary Resources
    Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

    From the presentation just above containing Pres Carter’s “Ten Energy Principles”:

    The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

    The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

    These are the goals we set for 1985:

    -Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

    (2) National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President’s Program.
    April 20, 1977

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7373

    .

  54. RockyRoad says (April 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm)
    (Hint–NASA is designing rocket ships of the future based on this energy source.)
    ————————–
    The only rocket NASA is currently designing and building is the SLS, commonly known as the ‘Senate Launch System’ because some interested porkfeeders in Congress decided what it should do, how powerful it should be, which contractors (in their districts, of course) should build it, etc, etc.

    So are we to assume that the fuel of the future is Congressional hot air? :-)

  55. This is a link to the paper that discusses the Younger Dryas burn marks.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full.pdf

    This is the supplement to above paper that shows the location of the Younger Dryas burn marks and shows the location of Caroline Bay burn marks. There are roughly 500,000 Caroline Bay burn marks. The Caroline Bay burn mark are all oriented along a North West axis. The Caroline Bay burn marks show evidence of restrike. (Think of the earth turning and an electrical strike from the top of the atmosphere as the planet is turning to create the elliptical Caroline burn marks.) The Caroline Bay burn markers occurred during glacial period, would assume correlating with Laschamp geomagnetic excursion.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7

    Then, just before the Younger Dryas began, a thin layer of bleached sand was deposited and, in turn, was covered by the dark layer marked “YDB” above. That stratum is called the Usselo Horizon and is composed of fine to medium quartz sands rich in charcoal. The dark Usselo Horizon is stratigraphically equivalent to the YDB layer and contains a similar assemblage of impact markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, iridium, charcoal, and glass-like carbon). The magnetic grains have a high concentration of Ir (117 ppb), which is the highest value measured for all sites yet analyzed. On the other hand, YDB bulk sediment analyses reveal Ir values below the detection limit of 0.5 ppb, suggesting that the Ir carrier is in the magnetic grain fraction. The abundant charcoal in this black layer suggests widespread biomass burning. A similar layer of charcoal, found at many other sites in Europe, including the Netherlands (3), Great Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, and Poland (4), also dates to the onset of the Younger Dryas (12.9 ka) and, hence, correlates with the YDB layer in North America.

    The Younger Dryas paper includes information on the Carolina Bays burn marks. This event occurred prior to the Younger Dryas event. These marks show evidence of restrike. See figure 7.

    Carolina Bays. The Carolina Bays are a group of »500,000 highly elliptical and often overlapping depressions scattered throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain from New Jersey to Alabama (see SI Fig. 7). They range from ≈50 m to ≈10 km in length (10) and are up to ≈15 m deep with their parallel long axes oriented predominately to the northwest. The Bays have poorly stratified, sandy, elevated rims (up to 7 m) that often are higher to the southeast. All of the Bay rims examined were found to have, throughout their entire 1.5- to 5-m sandy rims, a typical assemblage of YDB markers (magnetic grains, magnetic microspherules, Ir, charcoal, soot, glass-like carbon, nanodiamonds, carbon spherules, and fullerenes with 3He). …

    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016/suppl/DC1#F7

    Quote:
    Fig. 7. Aerial photo (U.S. Geological Survey) of a cluster of elliptical and often overlapping Carolina Bays with raised rims in Bladen County, North Carolina. …
    …The largest Bays are several kilometers in length, and the overlapping cluster of them in the center is ≈8 km long.

    The solar event causes the geomagnetic field change with causes the planetary cooling. The same solar event also causes an increase in volcanic eruptions in both hemispheres.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6341.abstract

    Bipolar correlation of volcanism with millennial climate change
    Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony. Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrient-limited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano.

    The following is a paper that discuss the archeomagnetic jerks. (A 10 to 15 degree abrupt change to the geomagnetic field orientation.)

    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf

    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/BardPapers/responseCourtillotEPSL07.pdf

    Response to Comment on “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007

    Also, we wish to recall that evidence of a correlation between archeomagnetic jerks and
    cooling events (in a region extending from the eastern North Atlantic to the Middle East) now covers a period of 5 millenia and involves 10 events (see f.i. Figure 1 of Gallet and Genevey, 2007). The climatic record uses a combination of results from Bond et al (2001), history of Swiss glaciers (Holzhauser et al, 2005) and historical accounts reviewed by Le Roy Ladurie (2004). Recent high-resolution paleomagnetic records (e.g. Snowball and Sandgren, 2004; St-Onge et al., 2003) and global geomagnetic field modeling (Korte and Constable, 2006) support the idea that part of the centennial-scale fluctuations in 14C production may have been influenced by previously unmodeled rapid dipole field variations. In any case, the relationship between climate, the Sun and the geomagnetic field could be more complex than previously imagined. And the previous points allow the possibility for some connection between the geomagnetic field and climate over these time scales.

  56. I’m sure the Younger Dryas was caused by an impact event. However there are no “burn marks ” from an electrical strke. There is evidence of a thermal pulse from an object exploding in the atmosphere. The Firestone et al paper summarises the event as follows.
    “We propose that one or more large,low-density ET objects exploded over northern North America, partially destabilizing the Laurentide Ice Sheet and triggering YD cooling.
    The shock wave, thermal pulse, and event-related environmental
    effects (e.g., extensive biomass burning and food limitations) contributed
    to end-Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions and adaptive
    shifts among PaleoAmericans in North America.”

  57. I have significantly more material (observations and analysis in published papers) and logic to support the above assertions. As I noted I am waiting for observational evidence of significant cooling. At that point this is no longer an academic problem, if my understand of the mechanisms is correct and if my belief that we are going to experience a Heinrich event is correct.

    The black mat material is found in multiple locations in Europe and multiple locations throughout the North American continent at significantly different latitudes and longitudes. As others have noted very special conditions are required for an impact to burn the earth without leaving a crater. The distribution of the black mat regions on the planet are such that it would require extraterrestrial bodies from different orbits, different source bodies. Astrophysicists do not support that possibility. The Firestone researchers are specialists looking for an explanation for the mass extinction that coincides with what every caused the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling. There hypothesis is not correct.

    How to explain what has happened on the earth is a holistic type problem. To solve a holistic problem it is necessary to look at the anomalies as a set. Each specialist group looks at the anomalies in their area of specialty. If the anomalies are examined as a set they fit together logically or provide logic to solve the problem, analogous to putting together the pieces in a physical puzzle. The analysis concerning the anomalies is mature and is converging in many anomalies on what has happened. What is missing is a physical explanation.

    Regardless, of what one believes is correct, accept the hypothesis as a hypothesis and look at its logical implications. Pretend it is correct, use ones imagination, play with the ideas. Assume key observations for the hypothesis are as I have stated, then what must have happened and what are the implications. That is Faraday’s method which is required when one or more fundamental assumptions are incorrect. (i.e. It is impossible to solve a problem if one or more fundamental assumptions are incorrect. The specialist analysis goes in circles, does not converge on the truth.)

    An independent analysis did not find the elevated levels of iridium which would occur if there had been an impact. Nanodiamonds are also produced from an electrical pulse.

    There is the largest increase in C14 in the record coinciding with the Younger Dryas event. There is massive change to the geomagnetic field. The paleo record shows the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than 10 years, at the unset of the Younger Dyras. The Younger Dyras cooling lasted for a thousand year and then the planet returned to interglacial warm. The Younger Dryas observations require an explanation. There are cyclic abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field which correlate with cyclic abrupt climate change that to requires an explanation.

    All of the observations (as a set) require an explanation. Due to fundamental physics (Maxwell equations. The mantel is an insulator. An opposing EMF is generated in the mantel that resists a rapid core field change.) There is no mechanism that can abruptly and cyclically change the thermal flows in the core.) it is not possible for a core based change to cause the geomagnetic field changes in the proxy record. The geomagnetic field changes are not random in time. If one accepts the geomagnetic field change evidence, then a surface charge change is required.

    Comments:
    1) There are other problems with a core based mechanism to generate the field. A differential in temperature is required to generate thermal flow. The differential is created by the liquid core solidifying. The solid core is estimated to be no more than a billion years, yet the geomagnetic field is known to have existed for almost the entire life of the planet, based alignment in ancient minerals. The solar wind will strip the planet of its water without the magnetic field to protect it. There is no explanation as to how the core mechanism could generate a field without a solid core forming. The self dynamo generation mechanism is only theoretical. It has multiple fundamental theoretical problems if it is critically examined. The self dynamo mechanism is accepted as there is no other alternative.
    2) As I noted the north geomagnetic pole wandering went from random to rapid movement in a fixed direction coinciding with the apparent inhibiting of Svensmark’s mechanism in around 1996.

    The glacial/interglacial cycle requires an explanation. Abrupt climate change in the proxy record requires an explanation.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

    ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM

    http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/teaching/CClittell/readings/Jan31_Overpeck_and_Cole_2006.pdf

    What do we mean by abrupt change? Alley et al. (2), in a seminal paper arising from a U.S. National Academy of Sciences report (5), followed on the original definition of abrupt change (6): an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Others have defined it simply as a large change within less than 30 years (7) or as a transition in the climate system whose duration is fast relative to the duration of the preceding or subsequent state (8).

    Further analysis of diverse records has distinguished two types of millennial events (13). Dansgaard/Oeschger (D/O) events are alternations between warm (interstadial) and cold (stadial) states that recur approximately every 1500 years, although this rhythm is variable. Heinrich events are intervals of extreme cold contemporaneous with intervals of ice-rafted detritus in the northern North Atlantic (24–26); these recur irregularly on the order of ca. 10,000 years apart and are typically followed by the warmest D/O interstadials.

    The roots of modern paleoclimatology have origins in studies of late Holocene climate variability in, and around, the eastern North Atlantic. The so-called Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Ages are etched into both the climate change literature and popular imagination. We now know that parts of Earth were nearly as warm as the mid-twentieth century betweenAD1000 to 1100 and that this generally warmer period was followed by colder temperatures at least in the Northern Hemisphere before giving way to the unprecedented global warming of the twentieth century (76–79).

    Cold-climate abrupt change occurs with a characteristic timescale of appro.1500 years, a feature that must be explained by any proposed mechanism. North Atlantic and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) records exhibit a period of approx.1470 years (64, 65). However, the adjacent ice core isotope record from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) site exhibits periods closer to 1670 and 1130–1330 years, which is in agreement with the independently dated record from Hulu Cave (49, 66).

    An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/43/18155

    Based on elevated concentrations of a set of “impact markers” at the onset of the Younger Dryas stadial from sedimentary contexts across North America, Firestone, Kennett, West, and others have argued that 12.9 ka the Earth experienced an impact by an extraterrestrial body, an event that had devastating ecological consequences for humans, plants, and animals in the New World [Firestone RB, et al. (2007) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:16016–16021]. Herein, we report the results of an independent analysis of magnetic minerals and microspherules from seven sites of similar age, including two examined by Firestone et al. We were unable to reproduce any results of the Firestone et al. study and find no support for Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/40.full.pdf+html

    Nanodiamonds do not provide unique evidence for a Younger Dryas impact
    H. Tiana, D. Schryversa,1, and Ph. Claeysb

    Our findings confirm, and in fact reveal more direct proof than the earlier studies, the existence of diamond nanoparticles also in this European YDB layer. No such particles are found in the overlying silt and clay or in the underlying fine sands. The latter contain, aside from the prevalent amorphous carbon material, the expected silicates and calcites with some of those also occasionally observed in samples of the black layer. In contrast to the reports from other YDB sites (3) the Lommel black layer samples did not contain any millimeter-sized foam-like carbon spherules. Because such spherules are relatively brittle due to a high degree of porosity of the carbon skeleton, a possible reason for the lack of such large particles in the Lommel layer could be the action of diagenesis through which the particles are crushed under the weight of the upper soil layers. On the other hand, any existing diamond material in such spherules, as found before in carbon spherules collected in undisturbed upper soils (7) from Belgium and Germany, would still be present in the Lommel black layer.

  58. Hello.
    If I understand the mechanisms and what is currently happening to the sun, the AGW issue will be quickly replaced by the mysterious global cooling problem. There will be reversal of the 20th century warming, which was not global. The CO2 forcing theory predicted the majority of the warming in the tropics with a troposphere hot spot. There is no evidence of tropical troposphere hot spot. The observed warming in Arctic was not predicted. Reversal of the 20th century warming will bring significant cooling of the high Arctic, increase in Arctic sea ice, and cooling of the Northern hemisphere. There is some observational evidence now of that change.

    I find it difficult to imagine how the media and the AGW paradigm pushing scientists will react and will attempt to explain global cooling. It is difficult to back track after stating the science is settled, 1000s of scientists support the conclusions, and those that question the extreme AGW ‘science’ (The extreme AGW theory is really a paradigm rather than a scientific theory as the observations do not support it) are deniers, to switch track to start discussing a very serious climate change problem, global cooling.

    This is my last comment for this thread. I will most certainly have more to say as solar cycle 24 progresses.As noted, there is specialist convergent on the fact that the geomagnetic excursions are extraordinarily fast. The following are a couple of additional papers support the assertion that there has been unexplained very rapid geomagnetic field changes in the past. The fast geomagnetic field changes have in many cases been shown to correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016084936.htm

    Oct. 16, 2012 — Some 41,000 years ago, a complete and rapid reversal of the geomagnetic field occured. Magnetic studies of the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences on sediment cores from the Black Sea show that during this period, during the last ice age, a compass at the Black Sea would have pointed to the south instead of north.
    What is remarkable is the speed of the reversal: “The field geometry of reversed polarity, with field lines pointing into the opposite direction when compared to today’s configuration, lasted for only about 440 years, and it was associated with a field strength that was only one quarter of today’s field,” explains Norbert Nowaczyk. “The actual polarity changes lasted only 250 years. In terms of geological time scales, that is very fast.” During this period, the field was even weaker, with only 5% of today’s field strength. As a consequence, Earth nearly completely lost its protection shield against hard cosmic rays, leading to a significantly increased radiation exposure.

    This is documented by peaks of radioactive beryllium (10Be) in ice cores from this time, recovered from the Greenland ice sheet. 10Be as well as radioactive carbon (14C) is caused by the collision of high-energy protons from space with atoms of the atmosphere.

    The largest volcanic eruption on the Northern hemisphere in the past 100,000 years, namely the eruption of the super volcano 39,400 years ago in the area of today’s Phlegraean Fields near Naples, Italy, is also documented within the studied sediments from the Black Sea. The ashes of this eruption, during which about 350 cubic kilometers of rock and lava were ejected, were distributed over the entire eastern Mediterranean and up to central Russia.
    These three extreme scenarios, a short and fast reversal of Earth’s magnetic field, short-term climate variability of the last ice age and the volcanic eruption in Italy, have been investigated for the first time in a single geological archive and placed in precise chronological order.

    William: The very abrupt geomagnetic field changes are associated with volcanic eruptions. In the case of the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion there is a super volcano eruption a few thousand years subsequent.

    The Auckland volcanic eruptions were small volcanoes, following the charge hypothesis that is explained by an electrical charge event triggering physically disconnected, but active, magma chambers, heating the chamber magma thereby causing an eruption at the same time, to capture the geomagnetic excursion.

    It is helpful to look at the picture of the Caroline Bay marks (see above link to paper supplemental that has multiple pictures of the Caroline Bay marks), to get an idea of the scale of the largest electrical charge events. The largest of the Caroline Bay elliptical marks are 8 km long. There are close to half a million Caroline Bay marks of varying sizes with the same elliptical shape pointing in the north-west direction. The charge takes time to discharge to the earth’s surface is likely affected to both the current geomagnetic field and the rotation of the planet. (I am working with the hypothesis trying to explain how a very large charge discharge would create ½ million burn marks with a specific orientation.)

    A surface based mechanism is affected by whether there are insulating ice sheets on the planet. A surface based mechanism is affected by the orientation of the continents, the ocean is conductive, the ocean floor is not. On a geological time scale the timing between geomagnetic field reversals.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027284.shtml

    Geomagnetic excursion captured by multiple volcanoes in a monogenetic field
    Five monogenetic volcanoes within the Quaternary Auckland volcanic field are shown to have recorded a virtually identical but anomalous paleomagnetic direction (mean inclination and declination of 61.7° and 351.0°, respectively), consistent with the capture of a geomagnetic excursion. Based on documented rates of change of paleomagnetic field direction during excursions this implies that the volcanoes may have all formed within a period of only 50–100 years or less. These temporally linked volcanoes are widespread throughout the field and appear not to be structurally related. However, the general paradigm for the reawakening of monogenetic fields is that only a single new volcano or group of closely spaced vents is created, typically at intervals of several hundred years or more. Therefore, the results presented show that for any monogenetic field the impact of renewed eruptive activity may be significantly under-estimated, especially for potentially affected population centres and the siting of sensitive facilities.
    Comments:
    1) There are truly an astonishing number of anomalies observations related to the mechanism. There is a very interesting set of solar, solar system, galaxy, and galaxy formation and evolution observations connected to the cause of the charge unbalance and discharge.
    2) In a similar manner the specialists are converging on the fact that there are anomalous observations, that the observations are strangely patterned, organized (in the case of galaxy formation and evolution).

  59. _Jim says:
    April 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm
    more soylent green! says April 2, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Given the laws of physics and chemistry and the energy density of green energy sources, I don’t see large scale implementation of the green energy sources except through legislative or regulatory fiat. They just aren’t competitive on the market, although I do expect them to become more competitive with each passing year.

    Ya know, we went down this road once before, under Carter; one might assume given the foregoing that you have no knowledge of that period and are unaware of the effort in the area of so-called ‘renewables’ … years ago driving past the Mobil Technology Company facility in Dallas (used to be on the west side of Midway south of Spring Valley but has now been razed) out in back were some of the research activities (wind and solar projects) resulting from the Carter-era ‘alternative energy’ initiatives … and where are we today? Wind is still intermittent, provides no reliable substitute for coal/nuclear, solar still bears a relatively steep buy-in price esp. when contrasted with the cost of base-load coal plant electricity production …

    (1) Primary Resources: Proposed Energy PolicyOther Primary Resources
    Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/

    From the presentation just above containing Pres Carter’s “Ten Energy Principles”:

    The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

    The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

    These are the goals we set for 1985:

    -Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

    (2) National Energy Program Fact Sheet on the President’s Program.
    April 20, 1977

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7373

    Yes, I lived through the Carter era and I remember it was the worst economic period since the Great Depression — until now, of course. And I remember the failed investment in renewables and the failed top-down centrally planned energy policy.

    I’m wondering if you misread my post. I’m not calling for a return to those policies or an extension of them. Perhaps you’re ignorant of what energy density means, or the implications of legislative or regulatory fiat.

    The first means a gallon of gasoline has many times more energy than the equivalent battery, or a gas-powered (or coal, or nuclear) electric plant has a much smaller footprint than a windfarm (and can produce electricity reliably, too boot).

    The second means that some special interest groups are trying to force unconventional energy down our throats by making conventional energy expensive and less abundant.

    I hope this clears up your concerns.

  60. “Energy Insecurity The False Promise of Liquid Biofuels”

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/digital/pdf/spring_13/kiefer.pdf

    Make your own conclusions. Projecting an opinion as a poster, immediately closes the minds of those from the other side.

    Science with regards to climate change/global warming and more specifically, how CO2 plays a role is more like a religion, based on faith. Each side believes only data that supports their already formed opinion. Interpretation of new data is based on this preconceived notion.

    Am I completely unbiased?

    Heck no but at least I recognize it and as a result, sometimes let opposing views into my brain
    long enough for a quick review to see if it makes sense.

Comments are closed.