Russian Scientists say period of global cooling ahead due to changes in the sun

From Radio Voice of Russia:

Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years”

Scientists at Russia’s famous Pulkovo Observatory are convinced that the world is in for a period of global cooling.

archibald_1749_2049_projected_solar_cycle

Graph by David Archibald

Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.

Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.

“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth”.

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century”.

Even though pessimists say global cooling will hamper exploration of the Arctic, experts say it won’t. Climate change and the resulting increase in the thickness of the Arctic ice cover pose no obstacles to the extraction of oil and gas on the Arctic shelf. As oil and gas reserves of the Arctic sea shelf are estimated to be billions of tons, countries are demonstrating more interest in the development of the Arctic. Climate change will also have no impact on the Northern Sea Route, which makes it possible to cut trade routes between Europe, Asia and America. Professor Igor Davidenko comments.

“The Northern Sea Route has never opened so early or closed so late over the past 30 years. Last year saw a cargo transit record – more than five million tons. The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012. China plans it to handle up to 15% of its exports”.

As Russia steps up efforts to upgrade its icebreaker fleet, new-generation icebreakers are set to arrive in the years to come. No climate changes will thus be able to impede an increase in shipping traffic via the Northern Sea Route.
Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/

About these ads

195 thoughts on “Russian Scientists say period of global cooling ahead due to changes in the sun

  1. The number of books written by American journalists taking what the Russians are saying about global cooling seriously remains at: one. It happens to have been written by yours truly, and there is a chance that I published it three to five years too early. There are worse mistakes one can make journalistically, but not necessarily in terms of marketing, lol.

    If you’ve yet to read your first book about solar-induced global cooling that may very well be on the table, and would like to, it’s available in paperback and Kindle, the latter linked here:

  2. I recall reading something like this way back in the early 2000′s. The prediction was a “cooling trend” would start around 2015.

  3. I assume that the scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg are not part of the “overwhelming scientific consensus” on climate change.

  4. With all apologies to Yakov Smirnoff, in Soviet Russia, climate changes you.

    In the long term, it is clear that climate change is driven by things greater than small changes in the partial pressure of a trace gas. It is unlikely to be one thing and is probably a combination of factors that are ordinarily randomly out of phase that come together for major events.

  5. Back in the days before early home pregnancy tests, my mom used to tell me not to worry, if I was pregnant it’d become obvious sooner or later. The same goes for this…sooner or later we will know which way the climate goes, even if we’re not around to witness it.

  6. “The first Chinese icebreaker sailed along the Northern Sea Route in 2012…..”. With all the ice-breaking that goes on these days, it’s no wonder Arctic sea ice is retreating!

  7. We know from history what previous cooling cycles have meant (famine, wars, etc.). With the power of today’s destructiveness, I wonder if man is wise enough to survive the next round.

  8. Is there a publication that makes this prediction, or is this just an opinion expressed by the scientist?

  9. Confusion: isn’t 24 coming in about 65? And the graphed “25″ looks like a sudden onset Maunder Minimum. Since we couldn’t predict a 24 the way even 5 years ago, a collapse to a Maunder seems a stretch. A stepdown from last two would give us a Dalton, though.

    Hah! A warning about a Maunder equivalent is the “coldist” version of CAGW ….. Do you think there are any grants available to prepare for another LIA?

  10. @ Harold Ambler

    You might want to hit the “refresh” button on “your first” with the new ice age claim. Robert Felix published “Not by Fire, but by Ice” in Aug 1999. I’ve heard Robert in a number of radio interviews, and noticed some science discrepancies. His unwillingness to reply to email questions and fact corrections limited my interest in his book. His website, IceAgeNow.com does have good information, and like us all, with effort, knowledge improves over time. Of course, Hansen predicted pending Ice Age, before he predicted the pending Greenhouse Steam Age, if covering all the bases some how makes you “correct”.

  11. “Jenn Oates says:

    April 29, 2013 at 7:40 am”

    Yes. But we know the cause. Unless it was immaculate, of course.

  12. Drill,baby drill. Thorium Reactors, we can weather anything-if we stop our ridiculous navel gazing.
    More energy is a way to stop wars and famine. Not less…
    ‘Happiness is a warm fast breeder’-Old Hanford area T-shirt..

  13. “The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040″ I am sure I don’t live until that day LOL

  14. Hansen and McKibben along with others have said that 350ppm is the “safe” level for CO2. Since we know what the weather or climate was like at 350ppm, why haven’t they gone back to 1988 and prior and compare that to today’s weather?

  15. JDC says:

    April 29, 2013 at 7:32 am

    Leif will not approve.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Because it is against his pet theory. Time will show who is right. I believe Svensmark’s theory and research is going to get more support very soon. It’s the SUN stupid. :)

  16. If we enter a cooling period, it will be hard to not see it as the end of the Holocene. It is about time. Many look at the ice core proxies as a good example of why it gets warm. That loses its sheen with a time lag between temperature and CO2 levels, and becomes an effect rather than a cause. I’m worried about the other end of the proxies, the maximum CO2 levels occur just prior to re-glaciation.

  17. “Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle.”

    I thought we were also on the cooling side of a 60-year cycle: warming from (roughly) 1970-2000, cooling for the next 30 years. I seem to recall a Russian article on the cycle.

  18. “Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious (STUPID, UNINFORMED, POLITICAL, HALF-ASSED) projects for the exploration of the Arctic”

    There, I fixed it.

  19. Phineas Fahrquar said on April 29, 2013 at 8:14 am:
    “I thought we were also on the cooling side of a 60-year cycle: warming from (roughly) 1970-2000, cooling for the next 30 years. I seem to recall a Russian article on the cycle.”

    We are on a 30-year cycle, but there are bigger cycles making themselves felt at this point.

  20. I would also venture that the size of solar cycle 24 in the graph is actually a bit smaller than depicted here and thus the cooling is entering the stage earlier than indicated.

  21. So, the West is suicidally hamstringing its ability to produce cheap energy, while the Russians are building icebreakers.

    Let’s see if I can predict the response to global cooling: We have to tax energy production to redistribute the money to the poor countries, after passing it through unelected bureaucrats fingers of course, and we have to further increase funding to the IPCC so they can determine what mankind is doing to cause the cooling, as it just has to be our fault.

  22. Thorium Fission reactors will never happen, as they will be overtaken and replaced by the now rapidly developing Fusion reactor technology. ITER was suppposed to be the LAST Physics experiment and also the FIRST Engineering exercise to try to scale up Fusion reactors to commercial size.

    In the long period of ITER uncertainty and construction, every one of the Physics problems have ALREADY been solved elsewhere. ITER is now purely an engineering activity to scale up Fusion to comercial plant size. That engineering design activity is essentially completed; and the construction effort using those designs, is in flower.

    We are witnessing the coming end of the “Energy Problem” amid enormous new Petroleum and Natural Gas discoveries, and the arrival of Fusion technology.

  23. “The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%.”

    This statement, taken alone, just can’t be true, and I wouldn’t know how to qualify it to make it true.

  24. Might well be the same sort of unscientific crap as “global warming”.

    We need to stop believing and start asking for evidence.

  25. “Severian says:

    April 29, 2013 at 8:32 am
    So, the West is suicidally hamstringing its ability to produce cheap energy, while the Russians are building icebreakers.”

    Indeed. Its quite funny really. “Who ya gunna call?” Ice busters (The Russians).

  26. Global Cooling will soon become the accepted paradigm – see my earlier guest post on this site at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/global-cooling-methods-and-testable-decadal-predictions/

    here is a summary of the conclusions of that post.
    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.
    For more posts on climate and Global Cooling check

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  27. I wouldn’t bet on ITER. It looks like a project to transfer taxpayer money to well connected insiders with job security until the year 2030 to boot.

  28. Some say that we must not accept “wiggle matching” until a proven causal mechanism exists. The recent warming cannot be due to the sun, they insist.

    Then, What can explain the inflection point in the global temperature curve from approximately year 2000 until now?

    I maintain that now is an excellent time to re-frame the debate, and focus our considerable abilities and energies (as a whole, a society) to answering that question. If it indeed turns out that a weak sunspot cycle and simultaneous cold ocean cycle produce catastrophic cold, we are going to look rather silly in about 10 or 20 years time. Our children, when grown, will figure this out and ask, Why didn’t the scientists make the connection between sunspot cycles and cold? They had ample evidence from the past. Why didn’t someone sound the alarm, and take prudent steps to try to prepare for the bitter and prolonged cold?

    No, I believe ancient man went about their agricultural activities right on schedule, each Spring. When the ground was warm enough, they plowed or stuck seeds in the earth. We even have the Stonehenge as a (possible) example, with the stones aligned so the Spring Equinox could be known to the exact day. They didn’t need a proven causal mechanism to act.

    Neither do we.

  29. I’ve always said that global warming is better than global cooling. Take a look around in January in the US upper midwest and note the number of crops growing. This year April has been quite a bit cooler and snowier than in past years. As a result, the apple trees have not yet bloomed (already bloomed past years); the ruby-throat hummingbirds are a tad later in their annual migration this year; but the obnoxious grackles are right on time.

    Yeah, yeah. I know. Weather is not climate; however, the predominant weather defines climate. Being old enough to remember WWII I also recall winter conditions that generally arrive earlier and stayed longer. I have grown accustomed to the generally milder climate of the past couple of decades.

  30. Greg House says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:41 am

    Might well be the same sort of unscientific crap as “global warming”.
    We need to stop believing and start asking for evidence.

    The two are in no way comparable. There is plenty of evidence for the sun being the major driver of climate, so it isn’t a question of belief. However, it’s a young science, and certainly much more study is needed. Certainly the oceans play a key role as well. What we do know, however, is that man’s effect on climate pales in comparison. C02 plays a role, but a minor one, as shown by the fact that C02 follows what climate does, not the reverse.

  31. G P Hanner says:April 29, 2013 at 9:02 am
    Your link to maps of hummingbird migration are disappointing. There is nothing west of the Mississippi River. I live in Western Colorado, and watch for their return and departure annually. We usually have them by 4/20…none yet this year. Noticed in 2011, they left 2-3 weeks early, and we havd sub-zero temperatures two months later, 2-3 week earlier than usual. They seem to have some prescience about the near future.

  32. This sort of stuff is a good counter-irritant to use against the global warmers, but who believes that you can reliably forecast climatic shifts? Not I.

  33. Anyone who has written on global warming had better get their book into print fast if they want to see any royalties.

  34. @J.O., to my knowledge Felix’s book does not discuss an incipient grand solar minimum (predicted after his book came out) and what effect such events have had on the ocean-atmosphere system in the past. I have meant to read his book and will reserve judgment and further comment until then.

  35. Cold weather is a boon to arctic petroleum exploration. Much arctic land is saturated with water in the form of muskeg, small lakes, and so on. Only in the cold is such terrain traversable.

  36. If those scientists are right, we need to be burning as much coal and natural gas as possible in order to hopefully counteract that global cooling and avoid the next ice age. –which could be disastrous for humanity. That is if, of course, the atmosphere isn’t totally saturated to the point that more CO2 won’t do any good and we need orbital solar mirrors to keep the earth warm. One way or another, though , seriously, we have to get the science right and head off the hysteria and politicization.

  37. Seems like a bit far in the future to be predicting unless one is a climatologist and has a pointy hat with stars.

  38. Joseph A Olson says April 29, 2013 at 7:55 am
    @ Harold Ambler

    You might want to hit the “refresh” button on “your first” …

    Indeed, it most likely is “his first”, unless you possibly meant “you are [not?] first” (in that category), which has an ENTIRELY different meaning than that which was written.

    A further example: “You should be clear in your writing since you’re [you are] on exhibition here.

    /pet peeve #1
    /pedant

    .

  39. Dr. A.
    Many of us have been saying the same thing for years. A clear mechanism is required, and in that respect the Russian scientists are no more advanced than the rest of us sceptics.

  40. Steve Keohane says: April 29, 2013 at 9:18 am
    I live in Western Colorado, and watch for their return and departure annually. We usually have them by 4/20…none yet this year.
    ______________________________

    And no leaves on the trees in NW Europe yet. Must be 3-4 weeks late this year.

    The UK Daily Mail had a wonderful article about the beautiful tulips at the Keukenhof gardens, but this was yet more propaganda. What they negated to say was that all those wonderful photos were from stock, as there are no flowers yet this year. Again this must be 3-4 weeks late.

    .

  41. And now for the main event in the ring with Putin vs. Leif. But seriously I think the real problem is a lack of breakthrough parameter construction that dissects the solar cycles as statistical distributions around the peak in order to construct time series off these ordered increments–deciles perhaps.

  42. Actually, this is progress. At least they are not claiming a slow down in the Gulf Stream! I guess that was part of the plan back when there was a chance for more funds from Kyoto and U.S. carbon tax passage.

  43. New York Times May 21 1975….A major cooling of the planet is now considered inevitable because it is well established that the Northern Hemisphere`s climate has been cooler since about 1950.”

    Science News March 1 1975….”Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000 year ice age.”

  44. This idea totally contradicts the historical record in which the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods each peaked on the order of one 1,400 years apart. To judge from that, we should have another two hundred plus years of warmer weather before a major cooling. Present conditions are not even as cold as the cold period in the middle of the twentieth century. It is more likely that the Dansgaard–Oeschger or Bond events govern this.
    Judging the future by the past is more scientific than Twainian extrapolations. Weather is cyclical and the interactions between cycles appear chaotic.
    Since when does a 200 year cycle have a 200 year cold period? Does a year have a 12 month winter? It is nonsense to conflate half cycles with whole cycles.
    The sun’s output has only reached at most a hundred year low placing us at the coldest point of a two hundred year cycle. It can only get warmer.

  45. Laurence Clark Crossen says:
    ”The sun’s output has only reached at most a hundred year low placing us at the coldest point of a two hundred year cycle. It can only get warmer.”

    That’s like saying we’re at winter solstice it can only get warmer.

    There’s a multitude of cycles, the summation of which is what matters and thus the interval may vary in realized effects; in other words the interval between a mere two warm periods does not necessarily predict the interval for this one.

  46. Obviously, the science behind this idea is debateable. Meaning, one should be skeptical. We should keep asking questions. That is the scientific process, after all. Now, let’s compare and contrast with Warmism, shall we? Warmist ideology includes within it the concept of “consensus”. That means that essentially, “the debate is over”, and that we must now move on to policy. Oh, sure, they make a big show about an “uncertainty” here and there, which requires “more study” (more $$$$, in other words). They are saying essentially that we need to spend $trillions to “save the planet”, essentially dooming millions to energy poverty, and a higher death rate, particularly among poor children. The consequences for their policy changes are already being felt, and if they have their way, will get much, much worse.
    But, what policy changes would be suggested by a possibly-severe cooling? Oh, for starters, a sane energy policy relying on the cheapest, most abundant, and dependable sources such as coal, oil and gas, and nuclear belongs in the mix as well. Strong, vibrant economies would certainly be able to withstand the rigors of a colder climate. No downside there. Plus, the good news is, if and when it happens, the cooling will be gradual. We’ll adjust. We’ve done it before.

  47. @John West
    The context was the larger 1,400 year cycle is carrying us to warmer times.

  48. “….sooner or later we will know which way the climate goes, even if we’re not around to witness it…..”

    Yogi Berra, where are you now that we really need you?

  49. Russians are getting their grants from a different source; unsurprisingly, their predictions are different from Western dogmas. Which side is correct? Neither one, I think, but this is a well-deserved black-eye for self-affected Dr. Svalgaard. His views on the Big Bang theory await the same inglorious fate.

  50. Forget oil gas coal nuclear (and of course wind and solar which are not really energy sources). Here is the game changer: Betting that Japan can extract and commercially exploit methane hydrate

  51. I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments. As if one pronouncement from a Russian observatory is the final word. And you call yourself skeptics!

  52. Yeah, Russian scientists totally bought into polywater decades ago. I agree that the sun’s activity is having an impact, but casting bones & reading entrails isn’t my strong suit. Let’s wait for 50 or 100 years and see what the climate is like then. Wake me up when it’s over.

  53. Tom says:

    “I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments.”

    The confirmation bias is by the Russian scientists, who are confirming the views held by WUWT readers.☺

  54. I am skeptical that the Sun is the only factor. There is land use, desertification, increased CO2, and a myriad of other factors. I do not believe that it is ‘just’ the Sun Stupid. It is most likely a combination of factors. Now while our main radiation source is the sun to date we have not seen enough variance to understand its impact over time. Too much has been built from proxy rather than direct data ergo we have too little information from which to draw conclusions. We can attempt to make a ‘guess’ but based on everything I am not too worried YET of an ice age setting in.

  55. If you don’t like the weather, come back in 3 days. It will be different.

    If you don’t like the climate, come back in 30 years. It will be different.

    (How ’bout them predictions?)

  56. There is a bit of subtle bidding-up of the gas futures there by the Russian academia. Last thing Russians want are short warm winters in Western Europe, this winter they’ve made absolute fortune from gas sales. Germans need to hurry-up with their coal power stations.

  57. Dennis says:
    April 29, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Forget oil gas coal nuclear (and of course wind and solar which are not really energy sources). Here is the game changer: Betting that Japan can extract and commercially exploit methane hydrate.

    Not bloody likely. It’s a crap shoot even for Japan, where the cost of nat gas is almost 5x what it is here. It’s a fools’ bet.

  58. this is probably not really easy to validate – based on projections, etc. HOWEVER, we are all aware (or should be!) that past ice ages began fairly abruptly, and within the realms of our available palaeo climate data and error bars, we are due one pretty well anytime soonish. I personally think that SSN are not really easy to use for projection/prediction basis, mostly because, like all our data, the older it is the less reliable it is likely to be….

  59. I would put the centers of the past warm periods at Minoan(3300 BP), Roman(2100 BP), and Medieval(900 BP). Note the interval (1200 years). Adding the interval to the Medieval warm period gives -300 BP or 2300 AD. Note that 1200 years is half of the 2400 year solar cycle (see below). This late ’90′s “Modern Maximum” was just a temperature spike. We have a cooling to go through before we again get to a genuine warm era, but that will be something to write home about, a 370 year-long stretch of maximal solar activity..

    According to Charvatova(2000)

    http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf

    “The next such segment will occur from AD 2240 to 2610. [snip] The 10-year cycle lengths should prevail. A very long term maximum of solar activity comparable to that which was last observed during classical antiquity should occur in the mentioned interval.”

  60. Solar activity has been in a decline since the 60′s. What is the explanation for the rise in global temperature since then?

  61. Tom in global cooling ain’t gonna get to me Florida says:
    April 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments. As if one pronouncement from a Russian observatory is the final word. And you call yourself skeptics!

    We’re skeptical of stuff we can’t see and measure–like any reason CO2 would be causing the warming that’s been heading up since the end of the Little Ice Age. And not that skeptical of stuff we can see and measure–like a decline in solar activity. Of course, call me stupid if you think the sun isn’t the Earth’s heat engine.

    I’ll take the risk.

  62. Well, they’re are guessing just as much as Hansen and friends. There was similar talk and books published about “the coming Ice Age” in the early ’70s – e.g. Climate and the Affairs of Men. One thing though, if they are right, 250 years of significantly cooler weather is a lot more serious than a one degree increase in mean temperature. You could be looking at massive disruption in Russian, Mongolian, Chinese and Canadian agriculture, just for starters.

  63. I notice a lot of confirmation bias in the comments. As if one pronouncement from a Russian observatory is the final word. And you call yourself skeptics!

    Well, I only see a couple of “I told you so” – and a lot more “yes, but” in these comments, so I think maybe it is your own bias that is being confirmed, Tom.

    Many people here have discussed the very low cycle 24 numbers, including the good Dr Svalgaard (who’s point is not that there is no minimum, but that the maximum was exaggerated). There have been many who have put a stake in the ground about what this means for temperatures as well, but they have had to argue for this (and still do, regularly). This is a very argumentative topic here on WUWT (and long may it remain so) but confirmation bias? No, that doesn’t fly at all.

  64. I have confirmed his old claim of a 200 year climate frequency to Dr. Abdussamatov on the 13th of this month, because I do know the structure of this function. But the point is that this ~200 year frequency is not a real single cycle, it is the 5th harmonic of a complex fundamental tide cycle of two objects of ~900 years. There is also a 3rd harmonic about 300 years. This can be shown with FFT analysis of J.A. Abreu et al. 2011 Steinhilber 10Be and 14C (frequency scaled!)

    Comparing the FFT analysis of one ore two solar tide functions of from slowly running objects, it is evident that the global climate is controlled by solar tide functions.

    Comparing the solar tide functions of 4 couples with a new publish graph of the global temperature for the last millennium, it becomes clear, that the coincidence of FFT peaks (after time scaling e few percent) must exhibit a 200 year frequency, Dr. Abdussamatov spoke about and now Dr. Yuri Nagovitsyn, working on the same floor.

    But the a significant decrease in temperature, like the LIA, will come in 2200 AD and after 2500 AD. The gap in temperature in ~2050 is only a phase of minor cooling.

    The geocentric climate dogmatics still have ignored to check the cycles with colourful names in astromomic synodic heliocentric functions acting on the Sun.

    That there is a dynamic physical process in the Sun can be shown by the neutrino flux from the sun which is correlated to the global temperature of the Earth.

    V,

  65. RockyRoad says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:22 pm
    re:Tom in global cooling ain’t gonna get to me Florida says: April 29, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    “…. And not that skeptical of stuff we can see and measure–like a decline in solar activity. Of course, call me stupid if you think the sun isn’t the Earth’s heat engine.”

    Of course the Sun creates the general climate on Earth, it is the source of life for us. However, addressing the changes in the solar activity is a different discussion. I do believe many commenters fail to make the distinction. Solar activity doesn’t vary enough to account for changes in climate but insolation changes do, orbital variations and obliquity being the most prominent. You can include cloud cover and changes in albedo also. Now of course, if the Sun were to actually really go haywire, well, we couldn’t do anything to change that so why worry over it.

    Rob Potter says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:44 pm
    “Well, I only see a couple of “I told you so” – and a lot more “yes, but” in these comments, so I think maybe it is your own bias that is being confirmed, Tom.”

    My bias is certainly that I am skeptical about everything, especially solar related. I am an avid reader of WUWT solar threads, I enjoy the discussions most of which require me to do some simple research to verify some of the statements and claims. So I will stand by my comment that I do not see how anyone can take one pronouncement from a Russian observatory as if it was the final word.

  66. I see little difference in speculation about a warm future or an impeding ice age. Both are based on equally flawed half-science. I sometimes wonder whether the entrails of today’s computers give any better answer to what lies ahead than do those of chickens of yesteryear.
    Much of the discussion here recalls the statement allegedly made by Niels Bohr: ‘Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.’

  67. The Russians are major oil exporters. Putin made them say it.

    See how easy that is?

    And if that fails, there’s always the standby of just moving on to the next world-ending problem that will amazingly have the same solution set as the previous world-ending problem –send in all your money to the government.

  68. Tom In Florida
    While I agree changes In TSI are not sufficient to cause dramatic changes, the changes in UV out put are much larger.
    UV changes by 50% over the 11 year cycle with spikes up to 200% higher than background.
    The mechanism by which this probably drives climate is through altering stratospheric weather via changes in the polar vortex and jet streams. A good area to look into!
    Cheers

  69. For What It’s Worth Dept: Back in the days before he became a klimate kook, John Gribbin wrote “The Strangest Star,” a book about solar cycles. According to his reckoning a deep decline in solar activity was supposed to set in around 2025.

    Some of us here will be old enough to remember an app from the earliest days of home computers called “biorhythms.” The story went that your physical, emotional and intellectual highs and lows went in cycles that could be predicted according to your date of birth. Lufthansa took this particular piece of woo so seriously that they grounded pilots on days when their cycles were all below average.

  70. @ Tom in Florida; you can’t be “skeptical about everything”, and why “especially about solar”? There has to be a starting point. For instance, what factors do you think influence climate most, and why? How do you suppose the Medieval and Roman Warm periods occurred? Or, do you doubt they happened? Perhaps you also doubt the moon landing, and that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by terrorists?

  71. “As Russia steps up efforts to upgrade its icebreaker fleet, new-generation icebreakers are set to arrive in the years to come. No climate changes will thus be able to impede an increase in shipping traffic via the Northern Sea Route.”

    Seems optimistic. Breaking the Northern route will be the least of Russia’s worries if we get anywhere near a LIA climate regime.

  72. Dr K.A. Rodgers says:
    April 29, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    “I see little difference in speculation about a warm future or an impeding ice age. Both are based on equally flawed half-science.”

    One of the major differences is this: Generally, global warming improves the condition of man-kind and many other animals. Billions are being spent by various governments to control this very minor ‘problem’ – assuming it is a problem at all. Global cooling, on the other hand, is a different story. Big example is lower food production. We have governments that are essentially wasting taxpayer resources, monetary, societal, and intellectual, on a non-problem and that is leaving us vulnerable – much more so than if the world were to warm.

  73. I can imagine that only a few (Russia and Canada- any others?)would even consider building an ice breaker. An ice maker? well maybe the other 97% would consider that…When the ice cometh, these two countries, both forsakers of the Kyoto Dodo, will be the only ones that will be able to travel in the arctic by sea. Certainly UK will be too busy de-icing its offshore windmills. Germany is likely to build a few eventually, though. Spain is too busy working on its green (gangrene) economy.

    http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/vessel-procurement/polar-icebreaker

  74. I have a couple of papers and a conference presentation by a group of Russians (Viktor Ermakov, Viktor Okhlopkov and Yuri Stozhkov ) from about 8 to 10 years ago that set out this idea. They did an fourier analysis of the temperature record, stripped out the likely frequencies and then did a reconstruction. The mechanism they identified was zodiacal dust and its effect on the planets albedo. Its arrival is affected by the solar cycles and solar wind and in turn their effect is distorted periodically by the gravitational influence of SAturn and Jupiter, individually and in conjunction, as I recall.

    Fancy that, looking for cycles in the systems of a planet that spins, has an orniting moon, that orbits around a star in c onjunction with a bunch of other planets which also orbit the star at differenet frequencies and affect each other at all sorts of beat frequencies etc etc. (sarc)

    Methinks the Russians are making amends for Comrade Lysenko. Good on them and won’t Putin and the Chinese be pissing themselves laughing, watching the might western ‘civilisation’, the world’s self appointed intellectual powerhouse made to look utterly absurd by the arrogance of the AGW alarmists. Finally the Russians get a decent dividend out of all that work in cultivating all those useful idiots. (not sarc – just effing angry)

  75. Solar sunspot activity is at the lowest level since 1900. During the decades of 1880, 1890 and 1900 the average sunspot numbers [NSO] were 45.2, 55.1 and 42.6. During 2000 decade they were 49.6. During the last 10 years the average sunspot number was 29.3. Low solar sunspot numbers seem to correlate with low global surface temperatures especially when ocean and solar cycles are both in sync and declining. Low solar cycles typically come in threes, so it is possible that low sunspot number may exist for several decades into the future. It would appear that we are headed for another Gleissberg cycle type of minimum which happen about every 80-90 years. They are colder than the normal 60 year climate cycle troughs like the one between 1940 and 1970. The last Gleissberg minimums were around 1660-1710, 1790-1810 and 1880-1910.
    As the past Gleissberg minimums show ,the winter temperatures will begin to drop rapidly . We will see the start of yet colder winters compared to the 2012/2013 wwinter as early as the next two winters.

  76. Rob JM says:
    April 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    “Tom In Florida
    While I agree changes In TSI are not sufficient to cause dramatic changes, the changes in UV out put are much larger.”

    You seem to be implying that UV is not part of TSI, which it is, a very small part.

  77. Bruce Cobb says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:10 pm
    “@ Tom in Florida; you can’t be “skeptical about everything”, and why “especially about solar”? There has to be a starting point. For instance, what factors do you think influence climate most, and why? How do you suppose the Medieval and Roman Warm periods occurred? Or, do you doubt they happened? Perhaps you also doubt the moon landing, and that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by terrorists?”

    Let’s not get off subject by taking things to the extreme. Being skeptical does not mean you do not believe anything. I am skeptical about everything simply means if I do not know something I do not take another persons word for it simply because they say it. This is especially true with the internet, and all salesmen for that matter. Just for the record, I do not doubt the moon landing or that terrorists were responsible for 9/11. I have been around a long time and have learned many things about many things. My opinions and what I believe to be true are based on that, although I am always open to changes but they must have some substance and real evidence. I have also been around long enough to recognize most charlatans and snake oil salesmen (having been one myself long ago).

    Now to answer your question of what factors do I think influence climate most. Insolation is the major factor. Orbit and obliquity changes, being the reason for our seasons, are on the top of the list. The rest are just minor range changes from which humans have survived for tens of thousands of years.

  78. The sun is a far better candidate for driving our climate than a trace gas.. How trace you ask, lets try 0.0391 percent.. (about 3.9% of 1%)

    Its funny that if you had to pick a gas to tax, CO2 would be the perfect choice.. Almost to perfect when you think about it.. The environmentalists every man Joe Plumber tax ticket, thats got a built in across the board fairness.. We all create CO2 so NOBODY is exempt.. Strange that the doom gas is also such a fair gas..

    This CO2 global warming, climate change idea and solutions are to perfect for it to ring true..
    Its as tight as our income/sales tax code.. Lovingly built to pick our pockets at every turn..
    We generally dont build anything this well unless its planned front to back from the get go..

    This is why the warming industry only sees warming.. To much of this or to little of that, its gotta be CO2.
    its always has to be CO2 because CO2 is just so damn perfect.. its almost a work of tax code art..
    A way for the government and their rent seeking minions to get their hands on the 50% of your money thats left over from traditional taxes.. They have to do this in a way to fool the public into not doing the math..

    Almost to perfect when you think about it..

  79. Is there a government worker out there that doesn’t want a carbon tax? Is there a government worker unaware that the public’s ability to pay more tax is maxed out? Raises, promotions and indexed pensions from a new CO2 based revenue stream?

    Our Schools preach global warming, with every working person in the building wanting a bright and successful future on the public dime.. Our public broadcasters (CBC, BBC, PBS) preach global warming, with every working person in the building wanting a bright and successful future on the public dime..

    Did I mention that they cant raise income or sales taxes anymore without a severe kickback..

    Where is this money going to come from because god knows government couldn’t pub two nickles together to make a dime..

    Without a new income stream our government and their groupies have a zero growth future..
    So when they splash around 40% of the population believe in this new tax stream I’m more than a little skeptical.. I’m outraged!

  80. There is more than handwaving support in the litterature for a coming long period of cooling. I have been especially impressed by a Chinese paper (Liu et al, Chines Science Bulletin 56, 2086 (2011)) with analysis of a 2485 year long time series of tree ring data from Tibet. With a mathematical technique called caterpillar SVD they show that the temperature variations in the second half of the period, including the temperature increase in the 20th century, can be predicted quite well with a mathematical function derived from the first half of the series. They find dominant cycles of 1324, 800, 199, and 110 years which they ascribe to solar variations. Extending the prediction to this century they find a temp maximum around 2006, strong cooling till 2068, and then again warming.

  81. One of the warmist’s anchor arguments is CO2′s direct impact may be small, but it makes a bump that starts feedback loops that cause great warming. They say solar activity can’t possibly have caused the magnitude of warming we’re seeing, because it is a tiny driver compared to CO2. All false. But, if cooling occurs, watch them try to have it both ways, arguing that the slow solar activity is offsetting and overwhelming all the due warming.

  82. Our little blue world has but one heater, if it sneezes we get a cold. The harmony of the spheres and their interactions gives us the harmonic nodes we see as cycles in the record.

    Our sun varies in many ways and its heat and light we get is not all that heats and powers our world, the electro-magnetic effect on our world is huge, of recent times the suns magnetic power has been in decline, as has the power of our magnetic field. It is the full spectrum that gives us our conditions on Earth and much of it is very variable.

    Everything we have comes from the sun, without it we are a dead rock in the void.

  83. For heaven’s sake people. Solar variability in terms of its affect on our weather, thus climate is nothing compared to what the oceans, meandering jet stream, atomspheric pressure systems (the ones that come and go as well as the ones that are semipermanent), water vapor, the Coriolis affect, and clouds can do.

    Try this thought experiment: Just consider how long it takes a drop of water riding on the currents coming out of the Arctic to make its way down, around the various ocean “rivers”, and back up into the Arctic. It takes a long time. And it makes its way through a number of the systems mentioned above that brings its temperature up or down. How could anyone imagine that process is a one-note suzie or somehow cancels itself out to the degree that we can possibly detect some other signal?????

    In fact the entire set of natural intrinsic systems from the top of the atmosphere down is a teleconnected yet highly variable group of not very well behaved teenagers. Figuring out what it is going to do next, down to the .5 decimal place, is like herding cats.

  84. Pamela Gray says:
    April 29, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    In fact the entire set of natural intrinsic systems from the top of the atmosphere down is a teleconnected yet highly variable group of not very well behaved teenagers. Figuring out what it is going to do next, down to the .5 decimal place, is like herding cats.

    Both cats and teenagers are easy to herd, Pamela–simply keep them hungry and lead (herd) them with food.

    Easy as pie.

    You’re not saying it should warm up if the sun goes quiet or it will cool down if the sun gets more active, are you? That’s like thinking without food.

  85. Wow, only yesterday, I commented that IF the sun remains quiet, in fifteen years people will be telling us we’ll be in an imminent Ice Age. It seems I didn’t have to wait that long.

    I think anybody expecting this to happen are going to be severely disappointed. The Dalton and Maunder minima happened when the LIA was already bumping along at the bottom, whereas we are still around the peak for this cycle.

    Three years ago, I made this prediction on reddit, which I used to frequent then:-

    What worries me is what happens if the planet continues cooling. I don’t believe we’re going into another ice age, but that won’t stop the MSM from speculating about it. And people have been so brainwashed into thinking that CO2 causes catastrophic warming, we could see them leaving their car running in the driveway, to help “warm” the planet. You’ll get others who will protest over windfarms, because it will exacerbate the cooling. You might even get some nutjobs ripping the solar panel off people’s houses, if it cools down enough.

    I wonder how long will it take before that prediction comes to fruition.

  86. Bruce Cobb
    April 29, 4:10pm

    People who deny the Medieval and Roman warm periods also deny we landed on the moon?

    Got to live it!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  87. rabbit says:
    April 29, 2013 at 9:50 am
    Cold weather is a boon to arctic petroleum exploration. Much arctic land is saturated with water in the form of muskeg, small lakes, and so on. Only in the cold is such terrain traversable.

    —————

    Very true – Exploratory drilling on the North Slope of Alaska is only allowed when everything is frozen as to minimize impact on the tundra. FWIW, exploratory rigs are usually all off the ice by Apr 15 at the latest; This year, there are still a couple out on the ice as of Apr 29. Why ? – unusually cold weather & the ice is sticking around longer than normal …… just sayin’ :))

  88. Warming, cooling, warming, cooling … wither way we’re screwed, either way shady scientists make some serious coin. Am I missing anything?

  89. @stas peterson
    Fusion as an answer to our energy problems is a pipe dream. ITER is a project that outlived its usefulness a decade ago. It is a political effort. Fusion is 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years now. We mostly proved the physics in the mid-90s with the Princeton tokamak. Do you understand that these machines work on D-T fusion? Do you know what a 14-MeV neutron does to solid walls, the walls used to extract the energy from the vacuum inside the magnetic bottle? 14-MeV neutrons do unimaginable things to solid materials. Note that the Princeton reactor ran full D-T fusion for only several seconds total. It was two years before the radiation subsided enough to go in and clean it up.

    ITER will not usher in large scale fusion. Tokamaks just might never make it. D-T fusion might never make it. Don’t get me wrong, fusion power generation is inevitable. It will be the primary (practically only) power generation eventually, but we just may burn all the coal first. We may even be worried about uranium and thorium stores by the time we get fusion commercially viable. Of course, I may be pessimistic. Centuries may be too long for my forecast, but four decades is unreasonable, unless there is a genius breakthrough, a true paradigm shifting discovery in materials or fusion processes. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. I wouldn’t bet the farm against a new little ice-age either.

  90. Mechanisms anyone? At least the carbonphobes have the absorption spectra of a trace gas to cling to.

    Let’s try to rise above their curve fitting excesses.

  91. Steve samd; “If we enter a cooling period, it will be hard to not see it as the end of the Holocene. It is about time.”

    Holocene Optimum was for Sahara about 10.000 – 5.000 years ago, since it has turned dry. Norway had its Optimum 8.000 – 5.000 ago with mostly all glaciers gone, since the glaciers have returned with a maximum around 1750s AD.
    We have been on the way towards the next ice age for about 5.000 years?

  92. Last week on UK TV this documentary about Icelandic volcanoes stated that we’re way overdue for a much bigger eruption than Ejya: http://www.channel5.com/shows/iceland-ashcloud-apocalypse/episodes/iceland-ashcloud-apocalypse (also at http://youtu.be/-9v26zFU2UY I believe).

    An interesting statement was made that the last time the largest Icelandic volcano erupted (some time in the 1700s I think) it reduced global temperatures by 2degC. We really could do with some more AGW to keep us warm!

  93. 0K – I saw one comment on it, maybe there were others but I have been wondering for years with all those icebreakers up in the Arctic (and Antarctic for that matter), and with ice being notch sensitive, how much impact do all those icebreaker tracks have on the icepack? Who tracks all those ships from a multitude of countries and what do those tracks look like – going around the edges, following leads, or crushing there way in transverse circuits? Maybe the impact is infinitesimally small but having watched small cracks on large lakes turn into large open areas of water, I wonder, and I wonder. If China and Russia are making shipping lanes, how much impact does that have. None? Some? And if the polar vortices happen to be blowing the right way?

  94. Pamela-

    Gotta disagree. Try this thought experiment – a small ball is floating in cold space and the primary heat source is a single heater. Small changes in the primary source are thus the primary drivers. Our primary heat source, with by far the largest effect on climate is the sun.

  95. @lonnie Schubert

    I agree ITER is not a practical means of fusion, but it is not the only game on town. One of the most promising fusion projects is Bussards Polywell Electrostatic inertial system, which ultimately will fuse boron and hydrogen leaving no neutron waste at all. One of the reasons you haven’t heard of it and that the research has been underfunded is unfortunately due to the ITER tokamak design, which Bussard initially championed and worked on its initial stages.

    I don’t think that means there is no reason to develop thorium however. Thorium is “easier” and better established technology, and would suit current infrastructure a little better. It will ultimately be superseded by fusion, and on our lifetimes for sure. More info on Polywell fusion:

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

  96. @Harold Ambler,
    I have my copy your book. I will bring it to the attention of some folk at a meeting tomorrow night.
    Maybe you’ll sell a few more copies.
    Cheers
    nzrobin

  97. pochas says:
    April 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm
    ///////////////////////////////
    Pochas

    About 9 months ago, I saw a programme on ancient Egypt which discussed droughts and grain production, and put those natural cycles at 1100 to 1150 years. This was backed up not only from historical (written and archaelogical) evidence in and around the mediterranean but also by a Nordic scientist discussing ice cores and other sediments.

  98. Ok, who has the SRC? (Solar Remote Control). Stop fiddling with it and put it back on “warm.”

  99. Is MSM turning, i know this subject has been discussed in other articles on here. But this story is been repeated here

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2316898/The-big-freeze-250-years-Experts-say-Suns-activity-wanes-200-years–cooling-period-2040.html#comments

    I also sense that UK population is also starting to arise from its slumber in believing the garbage about climate change .If we have not a good summer and another cold winter things could get interesting, especially around 2015.

  100. sophocles said on April 30, 2013 at 1:25 am:

    Ok, who has the SRC? (Solar Remote Control). Stop fiddling with it and put it back on “warm.”

    Sorry about that. Here, I left it just inside the door of the TARDIS…

    Oh crap. Now where did I put the TARDIS recall remote?

  101. In reply to:

    Elliot Kennel says:
    April 29, 2013 at 7:50 am
    Is there a publication that makes this prediction, or is this just an opinion expressed by the scientist?

    William,
    There are hundreds of individual published papers that layout the theory (there is cyclic climate change in the paleo record and each and every time the climate changes there is an accompanying change to the solar magnetic cycle) and the mechanisms (by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate), however, there is a very vocal group that are stating catastrophic warming at a volume and consistency that drowns out or intimidates anyone connecting the dots to predict global cooling.

    The paleoclimatic record shows cycles of warming followed by cooling Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the more sever Heinrich events. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 1450 years plus or minus a discrete change of 500 years (i.e. 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years).
    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles/Heinrich events through the current interglacial and into the last glacial phase.

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.,%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf

    A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    William: This paper provides the observational evidence to support the assertion that the last Heinrich event 12,900 years before present at which time the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold when insolation at latitude N65 in June and July was at maximum with 90% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade correlates with an unknown massive change in C14 which correlates with a solar magnetic cycle change.

    Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
    http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf

    William: The following is more information concerning how unusual the 20th century period of high solar activity was and what to possibly expect if the sun moves abruptly into a deep minimum.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385

    Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov
    …We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics-based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux. A list of grand minima and maxima of solar activity is presented for the Holocene (since 9500 BC) and the statistics of both the length of individual events as well as the waiting time between them are analyzed…. …Solar activity on multi-millenial time scales has been recently reconstructed using a physics-based model from measurements of 14C in tree rings (see full details in Solanki et al. 2004, Usoskin et al. 2006a). The validity of the model results for the last centennia has been proven by independent data on measurements of 44Ti in stony meteorites (Usoskin et al. 2006b). The reconstruction depends on the knowledge of temporal changes of the geomagnetic dipole field, which must be estimated independently by paleomagnetic methods. Here we compare two solar activity reconstructions, which … …the more recent work of Korte & Constable (2005) may underestimate it. Thus we consider both models as they bound a realistic case. We note that the Yang et al. (2000) data run more than 4000 years longer and give a more conservative estimate of the grand maxima. See figure 3 in this paper. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
    Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades. (William: The authors considered total solar irradiation TSI which is not the major mechanism by which the sun modulate planetary temperature. The mechanism is modulation of low level and high level clouds. During both Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle and the Heinrich events the mechanism is inhibited as the solar magnetic cycle is interrupted. (i.e. Galactic cosmic rays increase however there is not an increase in planetary clouds.))
    William: This paper notes that roughly 10 years ago the magnetic field strength on newly formed sunspots started to decay linearly. Based on Eugene Parker’s analysis the magnetic ropes – the magnetic ropes are hypothesized to form at the solar tachocline and then rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun – require a minimum field strength to avoid being torn apart in by turbulence in the convection zone. The authors of this paper note there are no sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength that is less than 1500 gauss. It the trend continues the sun will have no sunspots in around 2017.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1

    Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
    Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field
    strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the
    NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope. … …This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.
    We reported in Penn & Livingston (2006) that a time series of this magnetic field data showed a decrease in the umbral magnetic field strength which was independent of the normal sunspot cycle. Also, the measurements revealed a threshold magnetic field strength of about 1500 Gauss, below which no dark pores formed. A linear extrapolation of the magnetic field trend suggested that the mean field strength would reach this threshold 1500 Gauss value in the year 2017.

    William: This paper explains two of the mechanisms ion mediated cloud nucleation (changes to the strength and angle of the solar heliosphere modulate GCR. GCR strike the earth’s atmosphere and create ions) and electroscavenging (solar wind creates a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions).

    http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf

    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity
    and Climate by Brian A. Tinsley and Fangqun Yu

    The ionization at cloud level that determines the rate of electroscavenging and IMN is influenced by space particle fluxes as illustrated in Figure 3.1. These inputs are in the form of GCR; MeV electrons precipitating from the radiation belts with associated X-ray bremsstrahlung; the bulk solar wind plasma with its embedded magnetic fields that determines the horizontal distribution of potential across the polar cap ionospheres; and occasional energetic solar proton events. The latter occur too infrequently to have a significant effect on climate, and are not illustrated. The GCR flux is responsible for almost all of the production of ionization below 15 km altitude, that determines the conductivity in that region. The MeV electrons and their associated X-rays produce ionization in the stratosphere, and affect the conductivity there.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid. … …The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

  102. As a casual observer in central Louisiana (USA), I saw my first Ruby Throated Humming bird two days ago, and the black berries (I love blackberry cobbler) are a couple of weeks late in ripening. Warmest days are running about the local average while the cooler days are down ten or so degrees F low. The lows in the next few days may approach/break record lows… How about some of the rest of you weighing in with facts instead of speculation.

  103. Quote: “Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger…the best place to start is with a carbon tax. A phased-in carbon tax of $20 to $25 a ton could raise around $1 trillion over 10 years, as we each pay a few more dimes and quarters for every gallon of gasoline…It’s the only way to revive the country and a moribund Republican Party.” NYSlimes columnist Thomas Friedman, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-to-put-america-back-together-again.html

    ‘Nuff said?

  104. JDC says:
    April 29, 2013 at 7:32 am
    Leif will not approve.

    Yeah, the Archibald’s graph used is quite old, not corrected for the Waldmeier discontinuity. The SC24 is way too high when compared to actual SSN data (it should be depicted on the level of something between SC5 and SC14).

    But I think the Russians could be more or less right there will be a cooling if this low solar activity continues – because the sun – contrary to the Leif’s belief – was – as always – the chief driver of the recent warming since the solar cycle 20 (- one can quite clearly more or less see the solar cycle signal besides the ENSO events in the global temperature anomaly data) and the solar activity trend turning point (I mean since the SC20 where the last warming period – the CAGW scare is almost all about – began) was in march 2006 according to the SIDC-SSN data – one can easily check here. This quite coincides with the now visible turn in the global temperature anomaly trend -although many can object the recent warming stall period is too short and that it is too early call, if one looks at the graph the different behavior seems quite obvious and unprecedented in the last half of the century.
    In my opinion no way there will be any significant warming next decade (..or more if the SC25 is even lower than current cycle) – whether Leif approves or not. And it will be killing for the CAGW business.

  105. “Smithy says:

    April 29, 2013 at 11:12 pm”

    You need to study the coriolis effect a bit more closely, as Pamela quite rightly points out is a factor.

  106. Lonnie E. Schubert says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    “We may even be worried about uranium and thorium stores by the time we get fusion commercially viable. Of course, I may be pessimistic.”

    ==========================================
    The Earth has 100,000′s of years of easily extractable thorium reserves. It only takes about 1.2g of Thorium to supply one person’s yearly energy supplies using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). Thorium is as plentiful as lead and it’s available in rich deposits all around the globe.

    You’re right about Uranium. We’ll soon run out of the stuff as solid fuel reactors are extremely inefficient and only convert about 0.5% of U235 to energy before the fuel rod pellets require reprocessing due to Xenon and gamma ray degradation.

    With LFTRs, Xenon gas is easily removed chemically during operation and the molten salts are impervious to gamma rays and convert about 99% of thorium to energy; 200 TIMES more efficient than solid fuel reactors, and much safer, too.

    The West needs to follow China’s lead in getting LFTR’s quickly developed and rolled out.

  107. Smithy your thought experiment speaks volumes about your level of sophistication related to Earth’s intrinsic climate and weather-related variables. This “ball” we live on is so much more than that. Including the atmosphere, we could spend the rest of this species of humanity measuring the obvious intrinsic variables that change each day, month, season, year, decade, and over the centuries. We would have to leave to the next human species to study the less obvious ones. The Sun’s variations in terms of what gets down to our level, measured quite well in rocks, shows amazingly steady output. So let’s measure the obvious variables here on Earth first. K?

  108. In NE Oregon, we are experiencing the influence of pressure systems interacting with a very loopy Jet Stream, which is partially driven by pressure systems elsewhere. Basically the result gives us occasional daytime high temperature records with nightime low records. Why? Low humidity combined with strong radiative cooling. We are also paradoxically experiencing some low daytime temp records right next door to an area that is experiencing high daytime records. Why? When an area experiences strong vertical mixing, we get cold upper air mixed in with warmer air at the surface, keeping us cold even on a clear day. If the loop in the Jet Stream and dual pressure systems stick around, we could have, overall, one of the coldest, dryest Springs on record, with the odd high daytime record here and there. We could also dip into the records for temperature spread in a 24 hour period. None of this, none of this, is caused by a changing Sun. It is all intrinsic to Earth’s own fickle nature.

  109. Alexander Feht on April 29, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    Russians are getting their grants from a different source; unsurprisingly, their predictions are different from Western dogmas. Which side is correct? [. . .]

    - – - – - – -

    Alexander Feht,

    An excellent point. The best overall result for objective science is achieved by having a multitude of fundamentally independent funding sources that are competing for the honors of being the sponsor of the first/best observationally verified understanding of climate.

    The biases in the climate science from each funding source could then more easily identifiable through comparisons by another set of individuals who are independent of any funding source (like volunteer unaffiliated auditors).

    We should establish the Independent Academe of Unaffiliated Science Auditors (IAUSA).

    Who wants to be a charter member?

    John

  110. Steve Keohane says: Your link to maps of hummingbird migration are disappointing. There is nothing west of the Mississippi River. I live in Western Colorado, and watch for their return and departure annually. We usually have them by 4/20…none yet this year. Noticed in 2011, they left 2-3 weeks early, and we havd sub-zero temperatures two months later, 2-3 week earlier than usual. They seem to have some prescience about the near future.

    There’s a reason why that ruby-throat migration map doesn’t include Colorado: That’s not part of their range. There are two or three species of hummingbird that transit/nest in the Colorado mountain west, but the ruby-throat hummingbird is not one of the.

  111. If the climate goes this way, it will be a very nasty time. As I told someone who was wailing about the “retreat” of glaciers and such due to climate change, “It’s all in good fun when the glacier is retreating, it’s when the glacier is advancing that you have to worry.”

  112. You don’t need any change in the sun’s output for the earth to have a cooling period. Hint: Glacial periods.

  113. For those who think fertilization will help us through “cooling” times, one must keep in mind, that fertilizers are only required during “vigorous” growth. Without vigorous growth, fertilizer use will only accelerate decomposition. It takes warm temperatures to induce the growth, which then requires more nutrients. GK

  114. An aside, for those able to work on the mathematics of turbulence and thermodynamics, this guy claims to have solved the 3D Navier-Stokes equation and has submitted for the Clay Prize:

    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~phildept/files/CV_Muriel.pdf

    He’s not currently affiliated with the Math or Physics depts. at Harvard but with the Philosophy Dept. Don’t know if his claim of a successful solution is true or what the implications might be, but I have seen it stated that Navier-Stokes equations become quite unworkable when the complexities of climate are involved??

  115. It seems to be an accepted fact that periods of global cooling cause more mass extinctions than do warming cycles. As to predictions, back in 1981 I was posted in the tiny Native Alaskan village of Golovin, a Yupik and Inuit community. One of the village elders had a joke on me as we walked the one street through town. He said: “Teacher, I think it is going to be a really cold and long winter this year. Look at the pile of firewood behind that white man’s house!”

  116. The SS24 Wolf/Wolfer number in Archibald’s graph seems high when compared to Layman’s Sunspot numbers.

  117. I read some time ago, that a Scientist, (I forget their Nationality) basically said something approximately along the lines of ‘Never mind Global Warming, It’s Global COOLING that we should be worrying about’.

    Does the content of this Post emphasise that?.

  118. This paper connects the solar magnetic cycle changes to the cyclic warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record.

    http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf

    “The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
    When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field sweeps through interplanetary space, thereby more effectively shielding the Earth from cosmic rays and reducing the production of 14C. Low solar activity lets more cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, producing more 14C. So the 14C record is a good proxy for the solar radiant output (Bard et al., 1997).
    However, explaining the observed changes in 14C concentration by production-rate variations alone is too simple an assumption, the more so when rapid 14C concentration changes appear to be coincident with significant changes in climate. … …However, if we observe sudden, major 14C increases like the ones starting at c. 850 cal. BC and at c. 1600 AD (about 20 per mil), it is hard to imagine any change in the global carbon cycle that can bring about such a drastic fast change, simply because there is no reservoir of carbon with higher 14C concentration available anywhere on Earth. Even a sudden stop of the upwelling of old carbon-containing deep water could not cause the sudden (within decades) 14C concentration increases that are documented in the dendrochronological records. So, if we observe that such a sudden 14C increase, which must be caused by a production increase, is accompanied by indications for a change towards colder or wetter climate, this may indicate that solar forcing of the climate does exist. In theory, increased production of cosmogenic isotopes can also have a cause of cosmic origin such as a nearby supernova (Sonnett et al., 1987). We consider this scenario unlikely, and note here that events such as the 850 cal. BC peak are present in the dendrochronological curve with a periodicity of about 2400 years (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1989; see below).

    “A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
    “… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
    Last 40 kyrs
    Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”

    Recent Solar Event
    “Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)

    Periodicity
    “Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

    William:
    There is however a missing piece to the mechanism. The geomagnetic field abruptly changes also abruptly changes when there are climate changes. As this paper notes, the geomagnetic field intensity also modulates the amount of galactic cosmic rays (mostly high speed protons) that strike the earth’s surface. (The GCR create heavy electrons MUONs which in turn create ions in the atmosphere. Ions increase the effectiveness of low level cloud formation, effect the lifetime of low level clouds, and effect the albedo of low level clouds in a manner that cools the planet when there are more GCR all else being equal.)

    The geomagnetic specialists have in the last 10 years found the geomagnetic field is cyclically and abruptly changing and that the changes correlate with planetary climate change. This change is anomalous as there is no liquid core based mechanism that can change the geomagnetic field as quickly and as often as the record shows it has changed. The observed rapid cyclic geomagnetic field changes are a paradox in that there is no physical explanation for what causes them if the explanation is limited to a liquid core mechanism.

    Planetary climate change correlates with these rapid unexplained geomagnetic field changes and as the above paper notes solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the climate changes, over and over again.

    Now what is curious or I guess expected as it appears we are going to experience a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or a Heinrich cycle, is the North magnetic field drift velocity suddenly in the mid 1990 increased in velocity from 15 km/year (it has been moving at 10 to 15 km per year for the last 150 years) to 55 km to 60 km years.

    It appears the sun is causing first part of the climate change and is causing the abrupt changes to the geomagnetic. If this assertion is correct, something is fundamentally incorrect with the assumption concerning the origin of the solar magnetic cycle and something fundamental related to the sun.

    If I understand the mechanisms the planet will cool significantly (Svensmark’s mechanism will start to work again when the North magnetic pole drift velocity starts to slow.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-ionosphere-drops-to-a-new-low/

    Boundary Between Earth’s Upper Atmosphere And Space Has Moved To Extraordinarily Low Altitudes, NASA Instruments Document

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/pdf

    What Caused Recent Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole Drift?
    The north magnetic pole (NMP) is the point at the Earth’s surface where the geomagnetic field is directed vertically downward. It drifts in time as a result of core convection, which sustains the Earth’s main magnetic field through the geodynamo process. During the 1990s the NMP drift speed suddenly increased from 15 kilometers per year at the start of the decade to 55 kilometers per year by the decade’s end. This acceleration was all the more surprising given that the NMP drift speed had remained less than 15 kilometers per year over the previous 150 years of observation…. ….Why did NMP drift accelerate in the 1990s? Answering this question may require revising a long-held assumption about processes in the core at the origin of fluctuations in the intensity and direction of the Earth’s magnetic field on decadal to secular time scales, and hints at the existence of a hidden plume rising within the core under the Arctic.

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

    Are there connections between the Earth’s magnetic field and climate? Vincent Courtillot, Yves Gallet, Jean-Louis Le Mouël, Frédéric Fluteau, Agnès Genevey

    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.
    William: The geomagnetic excursion correlate in time with the Heinrich events which correlate in time with both the termination of the glacial period and the termination of the interglacial period. (The solar magnetic cycle restart can reinforce or attempt to reverse the current state of the geomagnetic field depending on the orbital parameters (depends on whether the Northern or Southern hemisphere is pointing toward the sun at perihelion.) at the time in which the solar magnetic cycle restarts.)

    http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/1/gubbinsd4.pdf

    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 to 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. We have investigated a possible mechanism for the instability of the geodynamo by calculating the critical Rayleigh number (Rc) for the onset of convection in a rotating spherical shell permeated by an imposed magnetic field with both toroidal and poloidal components.

  119. Tom in Florida says:
    April 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm
    Rob JM says:
    April 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm
    “Tom In Florida
    While I agree changes In TSI are not sufficient to cause dramatic changes, the changes in UV out put are much larger.”

    You seem to be implying that UV is not part of TSI, which it is, a very small part.

    Hi Tom,

    My understanding is that it’s not the fluctuations in energy within UV and EUV bands across solar cycles that impact the climate in any significant way, as this is minimal in W/m2 terms. It’s the <chemical reactions with UV in the ionosphere that cause changes in ozone concentration, affect polar vortices and night jets, which may then affect surface termperatures to a far greater degree than the simple energy fluctuations.

    The correlation of global surface temperatures to solar cycles is better over a longer period than that to CO2, but any causation has not yet been demonstrated strongly enough. Going beyond just the physics and looking at the chemistry too, in sufficient detail, may improve our understanding of how solar changes cause terrestrial changes. I wonder if anyone knows how many grants the NSF has given to any such studies, compared to those granted to studies ‘demonstrating’ the impact of CO2-driven changes?

  120. The first time I read about this, and the Danes were on board with some ideas, was back in 1992 as they predicted this cycle would collapse and the next would be nil. At that time it was well above my pay grade as far as paying attention to it. Needless to say with the Triple Crown of cooling that I got harassed for by alot of people that dont see things our way, by 07 I woke up. The biggest point I read back in 1992 was the USSR scientists believe SS 24 would tank.. NASA in 2006 was saying opposite. Perhaps Hansen should have paid more attention to what he should have been, rather than the drivel he has driven home. The sun, the oceans, stochastic events are the symphony of climate and the sun conducts the grand orchestra. Cue the Moody Blues, a question of Balance, and none of it having to do with Al Gore thinks it does

  121. Hey Pamela, pay no attention to the 43,000 sheep that died this Spring in Northern Ireland from snow drifts and delayed Spring. That report came out today.

  122. Bruce Cobb

    Greg House says:

    Might well be the same sort of unscientific crap as “global warming”.
    We need to stop believing and start asking for evidence.

    The two are in no way comparable. There is plenty of evidence for the sun being the major driver of climate, so it isn’t a question of belief. However, it’s a young science, and certainly much more study is needed. Certainly the oceans play a key role as well. What we do know, however, is that man’s effect on climate pales in comparison. C02 plays a role, but a minor one, as shown by the fact that C02 follows what climate does, not the reverse.

    Have to agree with Greg here. One can’t condemn the ‘alarmists’ for jumping onto a few 10ths of a degree change upwards as a sign of impending doom whilst promoting a possible few tenths down as an equally valid sign of impending doom.

    The alarmists have 15u EM on their side. On that at least most of us can agree. What The Sun will do next seems to be a ‘stick you finger in the air and place your bet’ kind of prediction. There is no ‘predictive science’ behind those ‘bets’. Sure, somebody will be right but only because everybody in the field has placed a bet on every possible horse in the race. Barring disaster, somebody will look like a winner when the race is over. Hardly Science though is it?

    Lonnie E. Schubert

    @stas peterson
    Fusion as an answer to our energy problems is a pipe dream. ITER is a project that outlived its usefulness a decade ago. It is a political effort. Fusion is 20 years away, as it has been for over 60 years now.

    Have to disagree. Are you suggesting that the first time anybody wondered about putting a Human on the Moon was somehow the point at which we should mark the beginning of ‘The Space Race”? We couldn’t do it in the 13thC because we didn’t have the technology.

    We have known that Fusion is very real since we detonated the first Hydrogen Bomb. It may well be decades before our technology can deal with the engineering problems. Or not. But that shouldn’t stop us from exploring that particular avenue. I find your attitude even more strange given the subject of the TLP.

  123. I’ve been saying this for years, but I see the IPCC and CAGW climatologists keeping with their “climate change” meme and blaming any future global cooling on anthropogenic causes, i.e. primarily aerosol increasing albedo and “overwhelming” CO2 forcing..

    The storyline will simply move from CAGW to CAGC…. Both climatic cycles represent “change”, so the IPCC won’t even have to change their letterhead.

    Many of the current players tried advocating CAGC in the 70′s, but abandoned it once the climate chqnged and started warming up in the 80′s.

    I realize such an insidious plan seems to defy: science, logic, reason, common sense and ethics, but since when have these factors been an impediment to CAGW advocates in the MSM, politics and academia?

    It’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

  124. Dr K.A. Rodgers says:
    April 29, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    I see little difference in speculation about a warm future or an impeding ice age. Both are based on equally flawed half-science. I sometimes wonder whether the entrails of today’s computers give any better answer to what lies ahead than do those of chickens of yesteryear.

    There are matters of likelihood based on what we do know of the past. If earth’s climate continues to behave as it has for the few 100 ka, then the strongest cycle or quasicycle is that of the glacial – interstadial pattern. The pattern consists of long periods of gradual cooling leading to glacial and ice sheet formation, punctuated by abrupt, geologically short, warming interstadial periods with glacial retreat and ice sheet loss. At the moment we’re in an interstadial. Based upon past geological history, we are on the declining end of the interstadial, already sliding toward an other glacial. The long term trend spanning the last 8,000-9,000 years indicates that the planet does indeed appear to be cooling. It is worth noting that Arrhenius speculated that human releases of CO2 might interrupt or break this pattern, which is the ultimate origin of the present CAGW scare.

    The question comes down to whether, as the AGW hypothesis assumes, anthropogenic CO2 is adequate to break this cycle, or if as the sceptical view has it, our contribution of CO2 is of negligible effect.

  125. The SC-24 predictions are several standard deviations below the very lowest predictions. Will the SC-25 prediction now notably lacking in appearance expand their standard deviations? Sorry but based upon +1 SD max consensus to -1 SD min consensus it appears that the NOAA solar cycle experts are incompetent.

  126. Pamela-

    You sureness in your model that inputs into rocks over a very short time span in global and solar terms represent and prove the sun is not variable shows an arrogance and misunderstanding of millennial timescales and solar variability. Go study some other stars, live a few million years, and develop a good model of variability proven by actual observation over that time period and get back to me.

    Oh, you can’t? Hmmmm, me thinks thou dost protest too much and place far too much faith into far too little data.

  127. Pamela-

    The essential point is that if the sun varies, and the planet varies in it’s reflection of that input, little else matters. You can move the thermal energy around with any model you choose, but if the thermal input changes you get warmer or colder over time, no matter how you move it.

  128. “The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake up call for all of us to support clean energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it’s too late for our children and grandchildren,” said Tim Lueker, a Scripps oceanographer.

    Sobering? Au Contraire, mon ami! I’m planning a spring ’400ppm kegger’. That is, if it ever stops raining long enough for the lawn to stop ‘squishing’, here in the Great NorthWet…. My lawn mower throws a ‘bow wake’ off of the front wheels, as it gives the moss yet another crew cut!
    Heck – After a few pints of heady brew (Thanks to CO2!), we may even try our hand at herding Pamela’s cats!
    Yeee-Haaa!
    MtK

  129. G P Hanner says: April 30, 2013 at 7:55 am

    @Steve Keohane says: Your link to maps of hummingbird migration are disappointing. [...]

    There’s a reason why that ruby-throat migration map doesn’t include Colorado: That’s not part of their range. There are two or three species of hummingbird that transit/nest in the Colorado mountain west, but the ruby-throat hummingbird is not one of the(m).

    That’s funny, we have them throughout the summer, along with at least three other species. One, a copper color shows up in July and stays into August. That one is the only transient one I’ve noticed.

  130. In reply to:

    Sharpshooter says:
    April 30, 2013 at 3:50 am
    Quote: “Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger…the best place to start is with a carbon tax. A phased-in carbon tax of $20 to $25 a ton could raise around $1 trillion over 10 years, as we each pay a few more dimes and quarters for every gallon of gasoline…It’s the only way to revive the country and a moribund Republican Party.” NYSlimes columnist Thomas Friedman,

    Howdy.
    Your comment is off topic for this thread but important to be discussed in the context of ‘climate’ change policy. I feel therefore that I should response as the topic is germane to the climate change fiasco which is a key reason why the EU and the US economies are failing. (There is no free money to spend on green scams and there is an economic cost to spend money on green scams.)
    P.S. Please do not response. Let’s discuss this issue in another more appropriate thread.
    Best wishes,
    William

    Thomas Friedman is a blowhard who promotes half baked dot.com like schemes which if implemented will destroy our economy.

    A US trillion dollar carbon tax will kill the remaining primary and brown industry (industry that requires power inputs) in the US and send those jobs over to Asia (i.e. US consumers still want and purchase the products that require energy to produce. The change is those products and goods will not be produced in the US.) The US has an intrinsic competitive advantage over Asia and the EU due to lower energy costs. The EPA and Obama administration are trying their very best to negate our low cost energy advantage.

    The idiotic ‘climate’ change and ‘green’ scam fiascos have brought the EU to the edge of economic ruin. It is truly astonishing that they have managed to create a ‘climate’ crisis that does not exist and then have legislated policies that will kill all remaining primary industry and brown industry in Europe. In the excitement to jump on the bandwagon basic analysis was not done to work out the carbon impact or the economic impact of those policies. There is a net increase carbon dioxide emissions as the products and goods that were produced/manufactured in the EU countries are now produced/manufactured in Asia and the ‘green’ scams are so inefficient that the net carbon emission from each Kw of energy produced is almost unchanged. The resultant of the EU policy will and is therefore a doubling of energy prices in the EU which are already the highest in the Western world, a net significant in loss of jobs, and an increase in total world carbon dioxide emission.

    Lose-lose-lose.

    The EU and US crisis is the economy, not warming climate change. It is difficult to imagine what the response would be to cooling climate change. Let’s wait until there is unequivocal observation evidence of cooling to discuss.

    The ‘green’ scams are certainly a significant reason why the EU economy is failing. The EU it appears is winning the race to transform their countries into third world countries.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22353726

    Unemployment in the eurozone has surged to a fresh record high, while inflation has fallen to a three-year low, boosting expectations that the European Central Bank will cut interest rates.
    Unemployment in the 17 countries using the euro hit 12.1% in March, up from February’s 12%, according to official figures from Eurostat.

    In total, 19.2m people are now out of work in the region. Greece and Spain recorded the highest unemployment rates in the eurozone, at 27.2% and 26.7% respectively, while Austria, at 4.7%, and Germany, at 5.4%, had the lowest rates. Youth employment, defined as those under 25, hit 3.6 million in the eurozone. In Greece, 59.1% of under-25s were unemployed as of the end of January, while in Spain, 55.9% were unemployed.

  131. Back to David Archibald:

    Cycle 24 doesn’t look to be as high as your graph by a long way, and there is no pattern development to say Cycle 25 is a Maunder equivalent.

    I’ve followed your posts, and I see the temp vs cycle length relationship for the New England states, which is greater than would be expected for the global temps. I still don’t see where the collapse of Cycle 25 comes from. Especially when you still consider Cycle 24 to end on such a high note.

    Please advise of what I am seeing wrong here …..

  132. Brad says:
    April 30, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Pamela-

    The essential point is that if the sun varies, and the planet varies in it’s reflection of that input, little else matters. You can move the thermal energy around with any model you choose, but if the thermal input changes you get warmer or colder over time, no matter how you move it.

    Brad, I don’t believe you are thinking correctly.
    The top 2.5 meters of ocean holds as much energy as the entire atmosphere. So let’s assume something say a large ENSO like ocean effect takes half the heat energy from the atmosphere into the sea. As you say we can move the energy anyway we choose – now you have lost half the atmosphere heat content the fish aren’t unhappy but you will be.
    Let’s assume another effect, the small drop in UV and short wave radiation – balanced by perhaps an increase in longer wave radiation, leads to the sea surface temperatures at the ITCZ dropping a little as short wave radiation is what warms the oceans and the longwave doesn’t penetrate. The reduction in the strength of the convection at the equator leads to the Hadley cells shrinking and the Ferrel cells and associated jet streams moving equatorward. The effect of the Coriolis force and the difference in wind speeds leads to Rossby waves in the jet stream – they become lioopy (as they are now and have been for around 5 years). The looping track results in more cloud in the sub-tropical to temperate latitudes and more short wave energy is reflected back out to space leading to even cooler sea surface temperatures leading to reduced convection …. This is where we are at the moment. It is not weather it has not taken much of a drop in TSI just a change in the energy distribution. And yet everything is getting cooler. Now let’s say that we hit a PDO negative and an AMO negative at the same time – as we are at the moment – these are long cycles in the ocean currents and associated atmospheric pressures. We get even colder. Should the Earth go through some planetary dust or galactic dust or more galactic cosmic rays (see some of Nir Shaviv’s papers) then we could have the unlucky confluence of several peaks and troughs at the same time.

    I don’t think there is _one_ wiggle to watch. I think that there are several . And with chaotic systems an input of the right level at the right time may have a significant effect whereas at other times it would be minute.

    So when several groups looking at different apparently unconnected metrics feel the climate could become cold – I would follow Harold Ambler’s advice and not sell my coat.

  133. If we are entering a period of long term cooling, talk about use of the Northern sea routes seems to be frivolous. In our polar regions there is one factor that is known to stop ice breakers, thick ice.

  134. Ian W said:

    “The looping track results in more cloud in the sub-tropical to temperate latitudes and more short wave energy is reflected back out to space leading to even cooler sea surface temperatures leading to reduced convection”

    Nice to see one of my suggestions sinking in.

    Loopy jets equals more clouds and less energy into oceans. Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis not needed.

  135. Ian W said:

    2the small drop in UV and short wave radiation – balanced by perhaps an increase in longer wave radiation, leads to the sea surface temperatures at the ITCZ dropping a little as short wave radiation is what warms the oceans and the longwave doesn’t penetrate. The reduction in the strength of the convection at the equator leads to the Hadley cells shrinking and the Ferrel cells and associated jet streams moving equatorward2

    Observations suggest that the initial solar effect is expansion or contraction of the polar vortices which cause expansion or contraction of the polar air masses at the surface causing in turn more loopy or zonal jets which cause cloudiness to increase or decrease and the change in energy into the oceans than affects the ITCZ and the Hadley and Ferrel cells.

  136. The 97% who ok’d the Hockey Stick theory have a new solution that Michael Mann has had them review.

    X/cerpt:

    If you move the worlds time zones 4 hours counter clockwise global warming will end on time.
    Published only now.

  137. Doug Proctor says:
    April 30, 2013 at 1:07 pm
    Doug and others, the graph above is now a couple of years old. I will update it for the subsequent SIDC numbers. When I started out in this field in 2006, what kept us engrossed for years was the long tail on Solar Cycle 24. Do you remember the long wait for the first spotless days? And then there were plenty. Back then, I thought that Solar Cycle 24 would be the cold one and that Solar Cycle 25 was unknowable. Some others were saying that 25 would be the cold one. Seven years later, I think that 24 will be cold (and the lengthening of the northern winters points to that being on track) and that 25 will be absolutely frigid. That said, I don’t know if the Russians have got a physical model behind their prediction re 25. I don’t think so – they are arm-waving.
    It is now two years since Altrock last publicly released his green corona emissions plot. That plot tells us that the tail of 24 is going to be very long – as long as a normal solar cycle. That is the one hard fact that we have. A very long 24 means an extremely cold 25. So now we are waiting around for 12 years for the 24/25 minimum. I think I will go back to cancer research for a while, starting with a human clinical trial on benign prostatic hyperplasia.

  138. higley7 says:
    April 29, 2013 at 8:26 am

    No, Phineas is correct. The full cycle is ~60 years, ~30 to go up, and then ~30 to come back down.

    The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.
    – Damon Runyon

    It is not guaranteed that the 60 year cycle will continue, if there is an abrupt change in solar forcing, for example. But, that’s the way to bet, IMO. My money is on another 20-30 years of general cooling, followed by a new upswing.

  139. Dr. Archibald
    The SSN by all accounts it doesn’t appear to do much directly. In the N. Hemisphere there is a more intermediate stage to be understood for the temperature variability, before any of it can be partly or in totality attributed to the solar activity. Long records from the N. Atlantic for the moment, are by far better source of information for ‘guessing the future’ than the Abdussamatov’s unexplained musings about SSN.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/FTE.htm

  140. 3×2 says (April 30, 2013 at 9:29 am): “The alarmists have 15u EM on their side. On that at least most of us can agree.”
    ============================================================

    Yeah, “most of us”, the consensus fiction once again.

    No, the do not have 15u EM on their side. “Trapped” radiation can nor affect the temperature of the source (the IPCC “greenhouse effect”), this is physically impossible.

  141. David -
    First,
    thanks for all the work you did that make me and all sorts of others do our own investigations and come to our own conclusions. I believe that we are entering a cooler phase as per your correlations, but perhaps 0.4C globally is it. However, if the PDO etc was responsible for the earlier/post-65 cooling, then the oceanic phase cooling would be in addition to the solar effect. Then we could get a 0.8C cooling globally – which will translate into a 2C or so in the mid-continent wheat belt.

    I’ve done a little bit of original research so I know the vast amount of work it requires and how easy it is to find holes/poke holes.

    Second,
    “benign prostatic hyperplasia” seems a contradiction in terms, although I know what it means. Instead of the word “benign”, we should have a Latin term that means “Less than a complete smack in the head”.

    Cheers.

  142. Concerning fusion energy production, yes, polywell sounds good, but he has been saying he is only a half-million away from a breakthrough for some years now. I just don’t see it happening. (ECAT comes to mind.) As to the engineering involved with D-T, no. It just ain’t happening. Ask Francis A. Garner, my mentor in the 90s. He thought my estimate of more than 100 years was pessimistic, but he agreed that 60 to 75 was realistic. The key is that we just do not have materials that can withstand 14-MeV neutrons, and we have no hope of making such, short of the slow, incremental improvements we’ve made over the last 25 years. Besides, we need lithium to make the tritium.

  143. Lonnie E. Schubert says April 30, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    (ECAT comes to mind.) …

    Better take a closer look; that one is shipping to select customers …

    .

  144. Pamela-
    I like your comment about how the effects of the oceans, meandering jet streams, pressure systems, water vapor, Coriolis affect, and clouds influence weather. I very much believe these are huge drivers. What are your thoughts on the influence of the sun on one or more of these elements? I’m not talking about the heating of the sun, but do you think the sun could influence one or more of the element you describe in a manner we are not yet familiar with?
    Jasper

  145. It’s the sun, yes, but it’s also the soot. The obvious effects of soot on the Arctic (where most warming is occurring) have been given short shrift in favor of CO2 B.S. and hype.

  146. The sunspot prediction graph, from the Manned Space Flight Center, NASA:

    I’ve been watching it for a couple of years now, and the peak for cycle 24 keeps getting redrawn lower and lower…

  147. Any commenter here who bypasses powerful intrinsic factors makes the same mistake CO2 AGWers do. Why walk in that debunked path? Are you just a glutton for punishment? Why the desire to look past the much more capable intrinsic factors that affect both short and long term weather pattern variation? Do you worship the Sun like AGWers worship CO2? Do the math and go with the more powerful variable at play here. Leave the gnat’s ass items for later.

  148. Dr Norman Page says:

    “…
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024″

    This mirrors my forecast for mid-uppers land temperatures very closely.

  149. Pamela-

    LOL! 99.97% of the incoming energy to the planet is from the sun. Ummm, thus your argument is it does not mater if the sun varies even a little? Laughable.

    “The total rate at which the energy enters the Earth’s atmosphere is estimated at 174 petawatts. This flux consists of:

    solar radiation (99.97%, or nearly 173 petawatts)
    This is equal to the product of the solar constant, about 1,366 watts per square metre, and the area of the Earth’s disc as seen from the Sun, about 1.28 × 1014 square metres, averaged over the Earth’s surface, which is four times larger. (That is, the area of a disc with the Earth’s diameter, which is effectively the target for solar energy, is 1/4 the area of the entire surface of the Earth.) The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the Earth’s surface is about 680 W m−2
    This is the incident energy. The energy actually absorbed by the earth is lower by a factor of the co-albedo; this is discussed in the next section.
    Note that the solar constant varies (by approximately 0.1% over a solar cycle); and is not known absolutely to within better than about one watt per square metre. Hence geothermal, tidal, and waste heat contributions are less uncertain than solar power.[citation needed]
    geothermal energy (0.025%; or about 44[2] to 47[3] terawatts)
    This is produced by stored heat and heat produced by radioactive decay leaking out of the Earth’s interior.
    tidal energy (0.002%, or about 3 terawatts)
    This is produced by the interaction of the Earth’s mass with the gravitational fields of other bodies such as the Moon and Sun.
    waste heat from fossil fuel consumption (about 0.007%, or about 13 terawatts)[4] The total energy used by commercial energy sources from 1880 to 2000 (including fossil fuels and nuclear) is calculated to be 17.3×1021 joules.[5]

    There are other minor sources of energy that are usually ignored in these calculations: accretion of interplanetary dust and solar wind, light from distant stars, the thermal radiation of space. Although these are now known to be negligibly small, this was not always obvious: Joseph Fourier initially thought radiation from deep space was significant when he discussed the Earth’s energy budget in a paper often cited as the first on the greenhouse effect.[6]“

  150. It looks like some 19,000 cubic kilometres of ice melted in the Arctic Ocean over the 2012 melt period. The isothermal melting of ice requires some 334 kilojoules per kilogram at 273.16 K. That figure applies only to the change of state from solid to liquid between the temperatures of -0.01C to +0.01C (or from 273.14K to 273.16K). Most people seem to blame the Arctic Ocean for melting that ice so I try a simple check. The WUWT ice page provides data on sea surfaces temperatures. I decided to use a broad average of 6C for the water temperature. Now 1 litre of sea water at 6C will hold 4 x 6 = 24 kilojoules of energy. Thus 14 litres will hold enough energy to melt 1 kilogram of ice and turn it into 1 litre of water and we end up with 15 litres of water at 0.01C (273.16K).

    Thus 19,000 cubic kilometres of melting ice will produce 17,100 cubic kilometres of water plus the 239,400 cubic kilometres that provided the energy to melt the ice leaving us with a grand total of 256,500 cubic kilometres of water now at 0.01C. If that amount of water was spread around all the world’s oceans it would take the top 71 centimetres to 0.01C. Good thing it gets all mixed up before that can happen. But it just goes to show ice is a very effective cooling agent.

    The point I am trying to make is that A LOT OF ICE MELTED in 2012 and provided a lot of cooling. Other years when minimum Arctic ice is not so low there is less cooling.

  151. Stephen Wilde says:
    April 30, 2013 at 2:13 pm

    Ian W said:

    2the small drop in UV and short wave radiation – balanced by perhaps an increase in longer wave radiation, leads to the sea surface temperatures at the ITCZ dropping a little as short wave radiation is what warms the oceans and the longwave doesn’t penetrate. The reduction in the strength of the convection at the equator leads to the Hadley cells shrinking and the Ferrel cells and associated jet streams moving equatorward2

    Observations suggest that the initial solar effect is expansion or contraction of the polar vortices which cause expansion or contraction of the polar air masses at the surface causing in turn more loopy or zonal jets which cause cloudiness to increase or decrease and the change in energy into the oceans than affects the ITCZ and the Hadley and Ferrel cells.

    Stephen,
    The energy input into the system is at its maximum at the equator if you turn the input down just a little the effect will be seen at the poles. How can a lack of energy at the darkened pole cause the polar vortex to increase in size and push against the energy rich systems nearer the equator? I think the thrust for this particular swing door is at the equator although the effect is seen more immediately at the poles. An analogy would be a large flat pan of boiling water with heating at the center (the equator) turn the burner up slightly and the welling up of the water over the heat increases in size, turn the heat down slightly and the welling up reduces in size – is this the cooler edges pushing back or the warmer water not welling up so much?


  152. brad says:
    May 1, 2013 at 12:36 am

    Pamela-

    LOL! 99.97% of the incoming energy to the planet is from the sun. Ummm, thus your argument is it does not mater if the sun varies even a little? Laughable.

    “The total rate at which the energy enters the Earth’s atmosphere is estimated at 174 petawatts. This flux consists of:

    solar radiation (99.97%, or nearly 173 petawatts)
    This is equal to the product of the solar constant, about 1,366 watts per square metre, and the area of the Earth’s disc as seen from the Sun, about 1.28 × 1014 square metres, averaged over the Earth’s surface, which is four times larger. (That is, the area of a disc with the Earth’s diameter, which is effectively the target for solar energy, is 1/4 the area of the entire surface of the Earth.) The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the Earth’s surface is about 680 W m−2
    This is the incident energy. The energy actually absorbed by the earth is lower by a factor of the co-albedo; this is discussed in the next section.
    Note that the solar constant varies (by approximately 0.1% over a solar cycle); and is not known absolutely to within better than about one watt per square metre. Hence geothermal, tidal, and waste heat contributions are less uncertain than solar power.[citation needed]
    geothermal energy (0.025%; or about 44[2] to 47[3] terawatts)
    This is produced by stored heat and heat produced by radioactive decay leaking out of the Earth’s interior.
    tidal energy (0.002%, or about 3 terawatts)
    This is produced by the interaction of the Earth’s mass with the gravitational fields of other bodies such as the Moon and Sun.
    waste heat from fossil fuel consumption (about 0.007%, or about 13 terawatts)[4] The total energy used by commercial energy sources from 1880 to 2000 (including fossil fuels and nuclear) is calculated to be 17.3×1021 joules.[5]

    There are other minor sources of energy that are usually ignored in these calculations: accretion of interplanetary dust and solar wind, light from distant stars, the thermal radiation of space. Although these are now known to be negligibly small, this was not always obvious: Joseph Fourier initially thought radiation from deep space was significant when he discussed the Earth’s energy budget in a paper often cited as the first on the greenhouse effect.[6]“

    Brad,
    They are very big figures – you did not of course include the fact that the Earth is radiating 174 petawatts as well – as it is in equilibrium or close to it. So the system is a seesaw with huge values each side. A small perturbation will result in the seesaw becoming unbalanced and moving toward the hotter or cooler. In consequence, ENSO type radiation that results in the oceans cooling more rapidly will result in the Earth cooling as the seesaw is unbalanced.

    What Pamela was saying was that there are a multiplicity of perturbations that may act to increase or reduce the input or output side of the equilibrium. These perturbations are the result of chaotic systems so linear projection and Fourier analysis will be of limited use in forecasting the net result of their chaotic outputs. But they cannot be ignored however small as they are the balance mechanisms that have resulted in the climate equilibrium of the Earth.

  153. Thanx for the sunspot graph David. That’s the best looking one I’ve seen since the one in Willie Soon’s book on the Maunder Minimum.

    GES

  154. Does anyone here know whatever happened to CERN’s CLOUD project led by Jasper Kirkby? I know it was sort of stonewalled by CERN’s bosses as soon as the first resuts indicated that the sun does have a significant forcing on climate, and then I heard nothing. I think the Russians are now carrying the torch, sort of.

  155. well, doesn’t really matter. the same idiots can dust off their old stories from the ’70′s that predicted a new ice age, and go back to their original story, the one where mankind is going to cause a new ice age.

  156. There is no scientific theory that supports Global Warming as presently defined in the media. There are some hypothesis; that is, guesses, both pro and con, but scientific theories are just below laws and can almost be considered established fact as they are pretty much undisputable. The theory of relativity is an example. Not as strong as the law of gravity but close.

    People point to Venus. However, the atmosphere of Venus is 90 times heaver than the Earth’s atmosphere. This is like what a submarine experiences at 3000 ft below the surface of the Earth’s ocean. And the atmosphere of Venus is 97 percent CO2 while the Earth’s atmosphere is 0.03 percent CO2. Otherwise Venus has 90×0.97/0.0003 or about 300,000 (scientist claim 250,000) times as much CO2 in their Atmosphere as the Earth.

    Fact: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).

    Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide’s ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

    Only about 0.03 percent (1 part in 3,000) of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively). For billions of years the atmosphere has been losing CO2. 570 million years ago there was about 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature was similar, and life was booming. The earth’s atmosphere is CO2 starved and life would be better if the earth had double to ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. If anything more CO2 would help cool the earth since it aids plant growth which absorbs sunlight.

    The sun, not a gas, is primarily to “blame” for global warming — and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

    Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.

    Fact: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century, before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century).

  157. If global warming was true they would not have had to fake all the temperatrure records:

    “The IPCC are an abject lesson in how to hide a message in plain sight
    “In the new report they have dumped their former fingerprint predictions which looked so definitively and technical, but proved to be so wrong. However they will not join-the-dots. They won’t admit this is a major point their models have failed on, instead they flat out deny the results from 28 million weather balloons are conclusive.

    “In a sense, in AR5, the IPCC just throws up its hands and says “yes ok, the models don’t align with the data, but the data might be wrong, and rather than fix those models, we’ll quietly dump that test and the awkward results and pick a different set of inconclusive tests instead. It’s known as shifting the goal-posts.” http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/

    And someone mentioned Goddard and Hansen:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/

    “The figure below shows Hansen’s remarkable changes to the pre-1975 temperature data. He simply removed that pesky warm period from 1890 to 1940.”

    Have these charlatans destroyed the original records while trashing them?

  158. Look, what is happening all around the world, from the freezing cold in Europe late this march to right now, the snowstorm hitting from northern Arkansas to Wisconsin. Iowa just broke snow records for may,that weren’t even set during the ice scare of the 1970′s. We are heading for an ice age whether we want to or not. Just look at all the increase in severe weather. Also, look at how high the minimum sea ice extent is for Antarctica. I do believe we need to stop burning fossil fuels, but not for environmental reasons, but for the air pollution risk that is causing respiratory issues.

    • Arthur, in regard to the point about fossil fuel burning causing increasing pollution, it is important to be more specific as to how the fuel is burned, and the flue technology applied. A while ago Anthony interviewed Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, Canada. One of Ross’s points was that while developed countries like UK, US and Canada burned more fossil fuels, their air pollution figures improved dramatically at the same time. This is of course through improved burning technology and stack filters.

      On the other hand if good burning technolgy, or filter technology is not applied, as might be the case in some developing countries, then your point might hold water. However, the reality is, that ‘pollution control’ is manageable and we know how to do it well. But in all this please remember that CO2 is not pollution.

      Cheers
      Robin

  159. NASA predicted that solar cycle 25 could be one of the weakest solar maximums in a centuries, however solar cycle 24, the current cycle is already the weakest in a century, so it looks like Habibullo Abdussamatov and other scientists of the Habibullo Abdussamatov were right all along, so no coastal flooding at least! However, hurricanes will get worse, why? Because as the world cools, the tropics will remain hot, while the poles will get colder, so there will be a wilder temperature contrast, therefore increasing the coriolis effect will get more intense and therefore any systems that form in the tropics will have no problem becoming stronger. Some of the strongest hurricanes to hit the noetheast us happened during the little ice age during the 1800′s.

  160. In the two latest solar threads there is disconcerting absence of Dr. S.
    Although few days ago he said “ I must be preaching to choir today”, I expect his timely return in the next thread.

  161. vukcevic:

    At May 3, 2013 at 2:50 am you say

    In the two latest solar threads there is disconcerting absence of Dr. S.

    Yes, I noticed that, too.

    He is a valued member of the ‘WUWT community’. Does anybody know if he is OK?

    Richard

  162. richardscourtney says: May 3, 2013 at 3:11 am
    …..
    I think Dr. S. might have been busy (in Boulder) presenting paper on ‘Solar Synoptic Measurements’.

  163. Greg House says:
    April 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    3×2 says (April 30, 2013 at 9:29 am): “The alarmists have 15u EM on their side. On that at least most of us can agree.”
    ============================================================

    Yeah, “most of us”, the consensus fiction once again.

    No, the do not have 15u EM on their side. “Trapped” radiation can nor affect the temperature of the source (the IPCC “greenhouse effect”), this is physically impossible.

    Much as I admire your confidence I still see nothing more here than a 50/50 bet. My point was that the alarmists have at least proposed a physical mechanism. All I see here is a bet that, at the end of the current ‘neutrality’, temps will fall. Well I can guarantee one of two outcomes … up or down.

  164. Since 2006, I’ve forecasted that global cooling was ahead for our planet. This was in the middle of the raging debates over ‘man-made global warming,’ which I have always stated (and continue to state) is impossible because of the laws of physics that govern the Earth’s climate.

    There is no such thing as man-made climate change or man-made global warming. It cannot happen on our planet.

    My astrometeorological calculations have confirmed time and again that we are in the waning years of solar-forced global warming (since 1980-81.)

    At this time, in solar year 2013, we are about 3-4 years away from the end of the global warming regime and the official start of the global cooling regime.

    During these remaining years of solar-forced global warming, we will continue to see anomalous weather events that clearly show signs of the new climate regime to come.

    Moreover, we will see and experience both weather extremes of global warming and global cooling: drought, floods, high gusting winds, warmer-than-normal and colder-than-normal average temperatures featuring sometimes radical temperature spikes of 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit or more in some regions.

    For instance, the radical temperature spikes occurred here in North America with the cold, wet spring months of March and April that delayed farmer’s planting season 3-4 weeks this year.

    Although Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory said that, “we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years,” according to my forecast, the new global cooling regime that’s just ahead (a kind of mini-ice age of a neo-boreal climate type in the 21st century) will last ONLY 36 years – not the 200-250 years the Russian scientists have said. That is conjecture.

    And again, I continue to say that global warming has been good for the Earth; while global cooling is not.

    The years of raging debates and ideological warring over the outrageous lie of ‘man-made global warming’ has wasted valuable resources and time (at least 25-30 years) in preparing our infrastructures, agriculture and lives for the reality – and that’s Global Cooling, something far worse than global warming could ever be.

    - Theodore White, astrometeorologist.sci

Comments are closed.