Newsbytes: Sunspot Enigma – Will Inactive Sun Cause Global Cooling?

 From Dr. Benny Peiser and the GWPF

We Really Don’t Understand Our Climate

Something is happening to our sun. If history is anything to go by, the sun’s change of mood could affect us all by cooling the earth and throwing our climate change calculations into disarray. It might even be the case that the earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the sun. –David Whitehouse, Public Service Europe, 24 July 2013

Global warming has been on “pause” for 15 years but will speed up again and is still a real threat, Met Office scientists have warned. In a set of three new reports, the Met Office claims that global warming has been disguised in recent years by the oceans, which have absorbed greater amounts of heat and prevented us from noticing the difference at surface level. Other factors including a number of volcanic eruptions since 2000 and changes in the Sun’s activity, could also have masked the effect of greenhouse gases by providing a slight cooling effect, they said. –Nick Collins, The Daily Telegraph, 22 July 2013

In its conclusions the Met Office states that the pause has not falsified the climate models. If the pause is, as they define it and limit it, from 2001 onwards, then this is true. But if the pause is 16-years, as the temperature data actually show, then the models, already looking unimpressive, are in jeopardy. We are at the waiting stage. Better and more reliable OHC data are desperately needed. Even if global temperatures were to rise again the climate models have shown themselves inadequate. If the pause continues, however, then the crisis of climate science will become more serious. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 24 July 2013

The scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new – at least to me. I’ve never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before. I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this “message” about pauses had not been communicated widely. But what about another possibility – that the calculations are wrong? What if the climate models – which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming – exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide? –David Shukman, BBC News, 22 July 2013

Scientists are still struggling to explain the slower-than-predicted global warming over the past decade. There are innumerable variables in the climate system that could be responsible for the warming slowdown. These scientists have identified some of the likeliest culprits, but one professor admitted that they “don’t fully understand the relative importance of these different factors.” The recent warming plateau is exposing our limited understanding of climate, and it’s effectively killing the rationale for green policies that limit growth and, at the most basic level, try to force people to do things they would rather not do. — Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 23 July 2013

The Science Media Centre has released a statement on the failure of global temperatures to rise in line with the models. It’s spin of course, although perhaps not quite as blatant as we are used to from them. Lots of “our understanding is getting better” and not a lot of “nobody has a clue what’s going on”. There’s a complete misrepresentation of science’s level of understanding of the reasons why this is happening. As I said in Parliament, the inability of climate scientists to admit their ignorance is one of the reasons nobody trusts them. The Science Media Centre are just helping that process along in the wrong direction. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 22 July 2013

First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stick”, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied, “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.” –Sean Thomas, The Daily Telegraph, 19 June 2013

The Sunday Politics interview with Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey on July 14 provoked widespread reaction in the twittersphere and elsewhere, which was only to be expected given the interview was about the latest developments in global warming and the implications for government policy. Many of the criticisms of the Davey interview seem to misunderstand the purpose of a Sunday Politics interview. –Andrew Neil, BBC News, 22 July 2013

127 thoughts on “Newsbytes: Sunspot Enigma – Will Inactive Sun Cause Global Cooling?

  1. “May you live in interesting times.”

    I only wish some of my friends who have tended to give the benefit of the doubt to “the experts” would have been more convinced and taken the wagers I offered over the last few years. Now I’ll never find any suckers. ;-(

  2. I don’t have a clue what all these scientists are quibbly about. Didn’t President Obama clearly say that in the last 10 years we have been experiencing accelerated global warming? Who is going to argue with him?

  3. Quick question. Your article states that the sun is inactive at this time, but from what I’ve been able to gather from scientific news sources, the sun has been very active within the last couple of weeks.

    http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/8203/20130717/sun-hurls-coronal-mass-ejection-toward-earth-spacecraft.htm

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112904369/coronal-mass-ejection-witnessed-nasas-stereo-072313/

    http://scienceblog.com/64335/coronal-mass-ejection-headed-toward-mercury-and-venus/

    According to these sites, we just had some major Coronal Mass Ejections just in July alone, and it doesn’t show any signs of calming down. Can you please explain this discrepancy? Thanks.

  4. “””””””…….In its conclusions the Met Office states that the pause has not falsified the climate models. …….”””””””

    No need; the climate models themselves have falsified the climate models. How many of them are there, and do any two of them agree.

    Why is there any more than ONE climate model, if they are correct ?

  5. You are all missing the most obvious reason for the “pause”. The tireless pursuit of scientists (well, 97% of them anyway) has piled up enough mule muffins to have actually diminished the suns capacity to make heat. We are saved!

  6. Izzere any significance to the apparent color shift between the two sun images in fig 1a and 1b ??

  7. Nature is providing the natural experiment to point out who the real deniers truly are. I will believe in the power of CO2 only If the earth warms despite the cooling sun and cooling ocean cycles.

  8. taobabe says:

    July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Go on line and read. It’s all there. Compare these max to previous maxs. Think and check the data and you will be enlightened like the rest of us.

  9. It is simply not plausible to postulate that low sun activity is responsible for the global cooling over the past 15 years, without entertaining the possibility that high solar activity in the 80s and 90s was at least partly the cause for global warming.

  10. The Law of Obfuscation states that there will be an equal and opposite reaction to alternate outcomes from the coerced consensus, cooling in this case. It will begin by finding places to hide the heat while simultaneously claiming there was always potential for extended, opposite patterns to the coerced consensus. It may need to be expanded to include solar cycles as temporary effects delaying the inevitable warming or it may cite weather to deny the pause itself, even as others explain the pause as thou it is a pause. This may lead to some internal fights to seek purity among the cultists in refining the unified response message.

  11. “throwing our climate change calculations into disarray” states Whitehouse.

    Were they ever in any state but disarray? The mistake was to pretend that calculations described it in the first place. The IPCC draft AR5 graph of modeled temperature with actual observations shows the magnificence of the ‘calculations’. And to think it is upon this claptrap that the believers base their policies, the rest surrendering meekly to Progressive impoverishment, while the mantra denied the sun had a role. Now, they even claim brazenly and quite out of step with their own modeled data that they also had the ‘pause’ in warming nailed. Well, show me the graph that predicts the pause.

    If it wasn’t all so criminal could it have been comical?

  12. Good post, but I could have limited without the witch doctor section. Seems a bit petty and out of place.

  13. The links in my 2008 article no longer seem to work so whilst I have attention here is one of them:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1302&linkbox=true&position=10

    The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature by Stephen Wilde
    Wednesday, May 21st 2008, 8:20 AM EDT

    and for the benefit of the Met office the ‘missing’ heat is not in the oceans since it never reached the oceans in the first place due to increased cloudiness since 2000 when the jets became more meridional.

    As per Bob Tisdale’s work any small recent increase in ocean heat content is due to the recharge phase of the ENSO process. When La Ninas dominate,heat accumulates in the oceans.

    I think it will be found that the current recharge is a weak affair due to increased global cloudiness since 2000.

  14. Actually, I thought Sean Thomas was brilliant. We need to begin to ridicule the ridiculous. They have compared AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers. We might as well have a little fun with their silly religion.

  15. Oh how glorious it will be when the Senate questions the Hansenites on how their dogma turned out to be so wrong. Thousands of apologies will be due but will any be made? I doubt it. The only problem will be that, although we will get to say told you so, we will all suffer the consequences of a cooling planet.

  16. The Met is seriously worried their extra posh First Class seats on the Global Warming Fame & Gravy Train are about to be be removed from under their ever so hysterical fear mongering buttocks.

    Does anyone, anywhere still believe any Met Office predictions?

  17. Check this out from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23432769
    Little wonder Joe Public is a bit confused. One report says it might get colder – another one says, “there’s a methane bomb an all the ice is going to melt really, really fast…oh no….and it’s going to cost trillions upon trillions. Please give us more money to get more info, ta”!!

  18. Stephen Wilde says
    I think it will be found that the current recharge is a weak affair due to increased global cloudiness since 2000.
    henry asks
    more cloudiness as a result of what?

  19. I really like the Met Office 15-30 day outlook, like today’s for example…

    “The balance of probability suggests that changeable conditions currently expected during the first few days of August should persist for at least part of this forecast period. Consequently, further showers or longer spells of rain are likely to affect the UK, perhaps over northern and western parts in particular.
    There will also be some spells of fine weather, probably most likely in southern regions. Temperatures are considered more likely than not to be at least a little above average and, as such, conditions should feel pleasantly warm during finer spells of weather”.

    Now that’s what I call real meteorlogical brilliance! I wonder if “Deep Blue” had anthing to do with it? With this kind of wishy, washy nonsense, they can never really be proven right or wrong….and this one is actually more decisive than most of its 15-30 outlooks.

  20. taobabe says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am

    “…from what I’ve been able to gather from scientific news sources, the sun has been very active within the last couple of weeks.”

    Relative to its recent average behavior, but activity is currently at a low point in the overall scheme.

  21. Tao Baby: the current solar maximum is low compared to previous maxima ( approx. 1990, 2000) in sunspots (about 2/3rd down on 1990), total irradiance (all wavelengths combined) by a small percentage – less than 1%, and farUV (not clear from data but maybe 10% or more down on 2000), and also the magnetic field – which has been low since 2006 and did not rise up the scale as usual for solar maximum…causing NASA to give up on their best models of prediction around 2009. But this behaviour was predicted by several solar scientists.

    In my view, the low magnetic field and low UV flux are the key factors for climate, largely through the impact on the jetstream.

    Those solar scientists who did predict the downturn, expect it to continue into the next cycle – in which case we will have a natural experiment on what the jetstream/climate does during a low cycle – as in the past (Dalton minimum, Maunder Minimum and others).

    Stephen Wilde: take a look at my treatment of the ocean heat content in my book ‘Chill’ – you will see that it is not global but locally concentrated and right in the path of the jetstream – you are right on the button…..the shift from meridional to zonal alters the heat balance of the planet, indeed I think this is the proximal cause of ice-ages and all the Bond/Heinrich events/cycles. Clouds shift also – but you don’t necessarily need a total percentage change, a spatial change with do the job. Yes, clouds changed in 2001 – there was a major climate change event then comparable to the one in 1976: the 4% decline from 1983 was reversed suddenly, by 2% and it appears to have been stable since then. Quite enough to explain not just the ‘standstill’ since 1997, and the slight cooling since 2002, but ALSO all of the warming from 1980 yo 2000.The surface flux of insolation was nearly 4x the computed wattage from carbon dioxide!

    I am intrigued that you say the jetstream shifted in 2000/2001….I did not notice a shift until 2007/2008. What data are you using? I still have no explanation for the reversal of the cloud trend.

  22. henry asks
    “more cloudiness as a result of what?””

    Longer lines of air mass mixing from more meridional jets.
    I think the increase in cosmic rays is merely coincidental and not causative.

  23. Peter Taylor asked:

    “I am intrigued that you say the jetstream shifted in 2000/2001….I did not notice a shift until 2007/2008. What data are you using? I still have no explanation for the reversal of the cloud trend.”

    Simply my own observations in UK. I’ve always watched weather and climate closely. It was 2007 before I was confident enough to say it publicly.

    The reversal of the cloud trend is due to longer lines of air mass mixing in a meridional jetstream scenario.

  24. Peter Taylor says:
    July 24, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    Tao Baby: the current solar maximum is low compared to previous maxima ( approx. 1990, 2000) in sunspots (about 2/3rd down on 1990), total irradiance (all wavelengths combined) by a small percentage – less than 1%, and farUV (not clear from data but maybe 10% or more down on 2000), and also the magnetic field – which has been low since 2006 and did not rise up the scale as usual for solar maximum…causing NASA to give up on their best models of prediction around 2009. But this behaviour was predicted by several solar scientists…
    ______

    Thank you so much for that enlightening response. I will definitely start monitoring the sun’s activities from now on in regards to the effect that it has on climate and global temperature changes. I didn’t know it affected the climate’s weather patterns that much.

    Stephen Richards says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:26 am
    taobabe says:

    July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Go on line and read. It’s all there. Compare these max to previous maxs. Think and check the data and you will be enlightened like the rest of us.
    ______

    Wow. What an attitude to a perfectly innocent question asked by someone who truly wants to understand. And you wonder why people think you’re a prick.

  25. Sorry to be a dolt but am a bit confused about the linkage between the sun spots/solar activity and climate. Isn’t the measured difference in insolation on the order of a fraction of one percent? Am not being facetious am just trying to understand.

  26. The jet stream pattern l would not like to see happening to often during the winter is the Polar jet splitting in two. With the jet going in a waving pattern there will be cooling, but in itself l think its highly unlikely to cause a ice age. Because it would make the weather to unstable for a ice age to set in. For a ice age to form l think the Polar jet would need to split and go zonal over a large area of the NH.

  27. salvatore del prete says:
    July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM

    I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
    My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?

    I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.

    I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.

    Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
    Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
    AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
    Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
    UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.

    This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.

    Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.

    It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.

    With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.

    ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE

    Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.

    SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS

    weaker solar irradiance
    weaker solar wind
    increase in cosmic rays
    increase in volcanic activity
    decrease in ocean heat content
    a more meridional atmospheric circulation
    more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
    cold Pdo /Amo

    I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.

    This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.

    Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).

    I say this one 2014- 2050??

    Reply

  28. taobabe says: July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Quick question. Your article states that the sun is inactive at this time, but from what I’ve been able to gather from scientific news sources, the sun has been very active within the last couple of weeks. [snip] According to these sites, we just had some major Coronal Mass Ejections just in July alone, and it doesn’t show any signs of calming down. Can you please explain this discrepancy? Thanks.
    —————————————————–
    If you are at least somewhat nerdy, I recommend a readable and educational book called: “The Sun Kings” by Stuart Clark. It’s an early history of solar astronomy and how it affects this planet.

  29. Tom Hobbes says: July 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    Sorry to be a dolt but am a bit confused about the linkage between the sun spots/solar activity and climate. Isn’t the measured difference in insolation on the order of a fraction of one percent? Am not being facetious am just trying to understand
    —————————————————————–
    One theory that is hotly debated is that solar activity (I am greatly simplifying this) affects the size/strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. That field in turn affects the number of Cosmic rays that reach the atmosphere. That charged particle stream nucleates clouds and helps determine the planet’s total cloud cover. This effect can be far greater than the change in insolation.

    [To all you *real* scientists, have I mangled that enough?]

    • for Dan in California: not mangled….but the science on magnetic fields/cosmic rays/clouds is far from settled – the first indication was a correlation over the 1990 peak to trough in the cycle, with a 3% shift in cloud cover…..thin cloud at the cycle max, thicker cloud at the minimum – but this clear correlation could not be repeated for the next cycle without adjustments to the methodology and this has been criticised – all in the science literature, however, the work done at the Danish Meteorological Institute/Danish Space Centre does not seem to have been written up in the broader science literature – especially responses to the critics. Instead, Svensmark and his team were given European Space Agency funding to do lab experiments on cloud seeding. I think they would have been better advised to study the cloud correlations more.

      If they are right, other scientists have argued the effect is likely to be small.

      Perhaps more important is the correlation between low magnetic field and low UV emissions, and low UV with a southerly and zonal shift in the jetstream – which will also have an effect on cloud cover. Spatial changes in cloud cover may be as important as overall percentage shifts in determining energy input (visible light) to the ocean. For example, higher latitude clouds insulate oceans that would otherwise lose heat rapidly, lower latitude clouds prevent light reaching the ocean surface and hence cool it overall.

      Another factor, underresearched, is the effect of solar max voltage shocks from CMEs and clearing of aerosols….there was a rise in insolation in cloud free zones due to lower aerosols from 1983-2000, in line with the rising solar activity.

      All of the global warming from 1980-2000 can be explained by cloud data, and likewise the standstill since then. The question is – does CO2 rise/surface temperature rise have an effect on clouds? Clouds decrease from 1980-2000 as CO2 and temperatures rise, then the trend reverses whilst CO2 continues to rise and temperatures flatten. So it is not a direct consequence of CO2. The crucial question is: why did temperatures flatten (clouds as cause, or effect?). We know little of the mechanisms for regular warming and cooling of the oceans in imprecise ‘cycles’ but I suspect clouds are central.

  30. The sun is in a prolonged solar minimum which started around year 2005.

    Current solar flux reading are around 106 closer to typical solar minimum readings, then typical solar maximum readings even though this is the maximum period of time for solar cycle 24.

    This solar cycle 24 is as weak as solar cycle 5 associated with the Dalton Solar Minimum.
    Very weak and will have climatic consequences as this decade proceeds.

  31. Dan in California says:
    July 24, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    Not quite. It’s variation in the strength of the sun’s own magnetic field which modulated cosmic ray flux.

    The magnetic field is related to insolation, ie solar irradiance, but is not the same thing.

  32. taobabe says:
    July 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    Stephen Richards says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:26 am
    taobabe says:

    July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Go on line and read. It’s all there. Compare these max to previous maxs. Think and check the data and you will be enlightened like the rest of us.
    ______

    Wow. What an attitude to a perfectly innocent question asked by someone who truly wants to understand. And you wonder why people think you’re a prick.
    #####

    Wow. What a nasty response to perfectly innocent answer who truly wants people to learn how to do their own research. And you wonder why people think you’re a troll.

  33. It is solar magnetic field strength, and geo magnetic field strength and all the secondary effects which impact the climate.
    Weak magnetic fields equate to colder climate.
    Strong magnetic fields will equate to a warmer climate.

    Sometimes thresholds may be reached(abrupt climate change) ,sometimes not.( gradual temp change.)
    Duration of time and degree of magnitude having much to do if thresholds are reached or not, also the beginning state of the climate of the earth to begin with coming into play.

    The same climate forcings can have a different end result for the climate if the state of the climate is different at the start of those forcings.

  34. “Will inactive sun cause global cooling?” Yup. Svensmark is correct (although the cosmic rays cause high, not low, altitude clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo).

  35. DesertYote says:
    July 24, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    taobabe says:
    July 24, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    Stephen Richards says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:26 am
    taobabe says:

    July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Go on line and read. It’s all there. Compare these max to previous maxs. Think and check the data and you will be enlightened like the rest of us.
    ______

    Wow. What an attitude to a perfectly innocent question asked by someone who truly wants to understand. And you wonder why people think you’re a prick.
    #####

    Wow. What a nasty response to perfectly innocent answer who truly wants people to learn how to do their own research. And you wonder why people think you’re a troll.

    ______

    This is truly a vicious board. Do you even know what a troll sounds like? Nowhere in my question did I sound like a troll—-if you had even bothered to go back and read my original question, but of course, since you also don’t do any research of your own, you wouldn’t have picked up on the innocence of my original question, now would you.

    Is it a crime to ask questions on this board? Do all questions get relegated to junk status or troll status? Do you truly want to reach and educate other people in the world, or does this board solely exists for the purpose of self-entertainment with its only goal to preach to the choir? If it weren’t for the two genuinely kind posters here (thank you very much kind sirs) , I would have completely given up and gone elsewhere for information.

  36. Dan in California says:
    July 24, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    taobabe says: July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Quick question. Your article states that the sun is inactive at this time, but from what I’ve been able to gather from scientific news sources, the sun has been very active within the last couple of weeks. [snip] According to these sites, we just had some major Coronal Mass Ejections just in July alone, and it doesn’t show any signs of calming down. Can you please explain this discrepancy? Thanks.
    —————————————————–
    If you are at least somewhat nerdy, I recommend a readable and educational book called: “The Sun Kings” by Stuart Clark. It’s an early history of solar astronomy and how it affects this planet.
    ___________

    Thanks Dan. I hope it’s in ebook format as I am traveling later on this month and hope to get some reading in by then. Much appreciate the info.

  37. Salvatore Del Prete
    lf the Polar jet splits then the cooling could be sudden.
    Because if the Polar jet splits then you are likely to get large blocking highs sitting in the middle.
    So during the winter you are likely to get large pools of cold air sitting in the middle of these split jets. Now because you have got the jet flowing to the north and the south of these pools of cold air. Then its very likely there will be active weather fronts moving into this cold air both from the north and the south. What you are likely to get with this set up is not only cold but heavy snowfall as well. You will not want this sort Polar jet pattern setting in for to many years.

  38. taobabe says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:08 am
    Quick question.

    Hi…some days there are people who seem to ask innocent questions that are only here to hijack a thread so that may explain a little of the harshness you received.

    Just above the “Responses to Newsbites:” there is a small line that says “This entry was posted in…” and you will see just to the right the word Solar and further over you will see Solar Cycle 24. If you want to read about the sun and its influences on climate click on either one and there will be enough information to make your head hurt. Have fun!

  39. Brad says (July 24, 2013 at 11:50 am): “Good post, but I could have limited without the witch doctor section. Seems a bit petty and out of place.”

    Q: What’s the difference between the Met Office and a witch doctor?
    A: The witch doctor’s weather forecasts are occasionally correct. :-)

  40. taobabe:

    A great place to learn some things also is a website called www “dot” spaceweather “dot” com .

    It has a number of links to other sites, and has many places one is able to study and learn at one’s own pace. By all means, come to this website, as well as JoAnne Nova’s website ( www. joannenova “dot” com “dot” au ). Oftimes, I find the comments more enlightening than the actual article, but it is all good.

    I would also apologise for those who (probably) unintentionally mistook your demeanor. Overall, this and many other ‘denier’ (yes, I am a denier) websites are very cordial places, except for the occassional trolls (our current crop includes ‘blackadderthe4th’ and ‘jai mitchell’. I think that if you ask an honest question, you will be bombarded with honest answers. We seek to educate, not indoctrinate. Most of us have found that thinking individuals are able to discern what is true, and what is dogma.

    If you need a smile today, then google ‘Minnesotans for Global Warming’ (a.k.a. M4GW) and find their video “I’m A Denier”. If it does not put a big smile on your face, then down a couple of fifths, and watch it once the effect has taken place.

    Best Regards,

    Mark H.

  41. I have only ever found one guy with a good theory on what is happening and why. His name is Fred Bailey and he has written books about his theory about solar chord science. His website is http://www.solarchords.com/. It is time to worry about coming crop failures in the northern hemisphere and the dwindling world food stocks due to ethanol farming.

  42. We need to build a wormhole, place an uploaded copy of a fast-grown human mind into it, using the wormhole itself as refrigeration and lower the end containing the upload into the sun so she can study the sun!

  43. I agree with The Public Service, July 24, 2013: “If history is anything to go by, the sun’s change of mood could affect us all by cooling the earth and throwing our climate change calculations into disarray. …..We do not know.” I know Dr Svalgaard does not believe that the Sun is producing the Earth’s cooling since we cannot identify any ’cause and effect’ links. History should be taken seriously as it is actual observation and even though our science is quite advanced, we still have a tremendous amount to learn.

  44. Stephen Wilde says,
    “As per Bob Tisdale’s work any small recent increase in ocean heat content is due to the recharge phase of the ENSO process. When La Ninas dominate,heat accumulates in the oceans.”

    Stephen Wilde linked in his article to where it was said: “The simple relationship between global temperature and solar activity is obscured somewhat by the difference between global temperature and surface temperature. Global temperature is the average temperature of the oceans, which are the planet’s primary heat sink.” – Alec Rawls.

    This statement goes a long towards helping me understand what’s going on? The Energy Budget Charts show a lot going on in the atmosphere with me trying to see, is the net result plus 1% or what and are is there net negative or positive feed? I think Wilde is saying Sun > Oceans > Atmosphere. So do the Energy Budget Charts and Models address this? I ask myself when the Oceans have I’d guess 1200 times the heat capacity (term uncertain) as the Atmosphere It seems to me the Oceans are driving things and the Atmosphere is reacting to that. If the Models don’t incorporate this, assuming it’s true, what chance do they have? We with our Atmosphere can compare ourselves to the Oceans and their roughly 1200 times more energy (term uncertain). Thanks to the authors for their insight.

  45. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 24, 2013 at 10:48 am
    Told you so:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396&linkbox=true&position=1

    The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming by Stephen Wilde
    Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 5:46 AM EDT
    ++++++++++
    Thank you Stephen: I have created my own charts of temperature, PDO, ENSO and Solar Irradiance all synchronized in the same time frame – and it seems fool-hardy to not consider the sun. Your written time stamped predictions in 2008 must make you feel pretty good! I think Leif Svalgaard would would disagree, but I think he focuses mostly on TSI, and not the cumulative effects of an increased solar output – and as well disregards other regions of solar energy output as having a significant affect on what happens to our climate vis-a-vis changing temperatures.

    We live in exciting times, and I’ve been pushing against the tide with mis-educated liberals in the Bay Area of CA for years. I’m starting to say, “I told you so” – but I can’t wait to see what happens.

    Your 2008 missive on the subject seems timely now. Do you have an updated synopsis and new predictions?

  46. Thanks, Dr. Peiser. Yes, and understanding Earth’s climate is being made even more difficult by the media love affair with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
    We will keep watching the Sun.
    I think Dr. Svensmark’s work is very promising. I have highlighted some of it in my climate pages.

  47. There is a course at UNE supervised by Associate Prof Robert Baker, that I am thinking of pursueing towards my MA, I have already got my BA majoring in archaeology and palaeoanthropology and GCA (Graduate Certificate in Arts) that is mid way between a BA and MA, but this one is about sea levels and climate change. At one instance I sat one first year course ‘Earth in Crisis” also a course “Archaeology of the Landscape” just to complete my BA, and found his theories quite interesting. He mentioned how the sun and sun spots does affect the rainfall in some areas. And rainfall of course is most important to Australia, as we flip from flood to drought in some areas frequently. We have some differing regions from monsoonal up North, tropical and sub tropical, temperate to Alpine and of course desert in the middle of the continent. But this 500 level course is on sea level changes or palaeoclimate changes. He has researched the area on the South Coast of NSW and found sea levels were much higher than today by 50 – 100 feet 3,500 years ago. They have fluctuated over the centuries too. Should be interesting in a many aspect pertaining to climate change generally.

  48. Tom Hobbes says: “Sorry to be a dolt but am a bit confused about the linkage between the sun spots/solar activity and climate….”

    Among other things, there’s the possibility that the black body temperature of the sky is not independent of changes in thermosphere. The latter is very tenuous, but photons can not pass through it without at least one collision.

  49. Tom Hobbes, you could read my articles on Svenmark’s work, “Extraterrestrial Climate Influence” (The Svensmark Hypothesis):
    “Scientists have only recently come to suspect that cosmic rays have an important influence on Earth’s climate. Cosmic rays are highly energetic charged particles that originate from various sources in outer space.”
    “Scientists have found a link between cosmic ray levels and thunderstorms. There is also a positive correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and low-altitude cloud formation.”
    “Ions created in the troposphere by cosmic rays could provide a mechanism for cloud formation.”

    Do clouds disappear when cosmic rays get weaker? (Calder’s Updates, May 3, 2010):
    “The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments” Henrik Svensmark says, “that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the Earth’s climate”. Most dramatic are the events called Forbush decreases. Ejections of gas from the Sun, carrying magnetic fields, can suddenly cut the influx of cosmic rays coming to the Earth from exploded stars.

  50. Taobabe,

    Your delightful response to Stephen Richards’ condescension made me laugh even louder than Shaun Thomas’s hilarious parody in the original post! Thank God there are some real people in the room with actual feelings!!

    Of course, most of the people here have perfectly functioning feelings and manners, but it’s always worth remembering that some of the cleverest, usually male scientists, engineers, financial analysts, etc. can be rather skewed towards the spectral disorder known as Asperger’s syndrome, i.e. they can be a bit lacking in the ‘feedback loop’ department, otherwise known as manners and consideration for others’ feelings. Working with several such individuals over the years, it took me quite some time to realise they didn’t actually mean any offence, and were actually giving me exactly the answer I needed. After that you can grow to like them. It’s always worth gently reminding them why ninety per cent of their co-workers hate their guts though, if only as an act of kindness.

    Good luck with your investigations. You sound as though you are on the same journey of curiosity as all the rest of us. It’s very worthwhile here, and there are far too many posters and contributors with something authoritative or exhilaratingly new to say to walk away. Even though the conduct of the occasional zealot (either way) or mannerless egomaniac puts even me off once in a while.

    Apart from anything else, this whole ‘global warming’ controversy is one of the first real scientific controversies of the internet age, and the human psychology that it exposes is fascinating. It is right up there with the great Victorian scientific controversies, and egos, reputations and fortunes at stake. And in spite of, and also because of that, there is a lot of extremely interesting science in progress. Meantime, nature carries on, relentlessly doing what it was going to do anyway, oblivious to us, hopefully.

    Best regards,

  51. Tom Olsen on July 24, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Exactly! If you have 0.3C in 15 years, conclude that you have 0C in the next 15, the warmies concentrate on refuting one interpretation: “the warming is over.” They blag on about “it’s the sun” “it’s the ocean” “it’s the volcanoes” etc.

    The ALTERNATIVE is more devastating for them – “the trend is intact, but only half as steep as you thought.” Because half the steepness means
    – AGW truly is self limiting as fossil reserves expire
    – there are No positive feedbacks.

    We’re then free to enjoy the plant enhancing and other benefits of CO2 with trivial temp consequences when warming dies cyclically return.

  52. To Larry Kirk, AJB, TC in the OC, Mark Hladik, Thank you so much for your information and for the enlightened responses. I do apologize for starting off on the wrong foot with the community, as it was never my intention to barge in and interrupt what you all were doing. I accidentally stumbled upon this website and found this stuff so fascinating. Unfortunately, since I am a writer and not a scientist, I do have huge gaps in my knowledge base about scientific understanding, but I am very proactive in acquiring knowledge and I am not shy about asking questions. I will try to play nice. I promise. :-)

  53. Bushbunny,

    Thanks for pointer to Robert Baker’s work. How interesting that he is in the department of cognitive studies!

    There have been some fascinating geological studies of variations in coastal sea levels over here in Western Australia, particularly the Geological Survey publication (for which I infuriatingly cannot find a reference right now) that included the study of sea level fall and coastal retreat at Port Kennedy, over the past 9,000 years, since the recent post-glacial Holocene Climate Optimum. This has been very accurately dated, using radiocarbon measurements of fossil wood in the successive coastal dune lines. If you Google-map search ‘Port Kennedy’, Western Australia you can see the area on the satellite image; it is marked Port Kennedy Science Park. Sea level has quite clearly been falling here for the past 9,000 years.

    Other fascinating recent geological deposits along the West Australian coast include the very large rock slab mega-tsunami deposits up in the northwest of WA, documented and described by former head of the geological survey, Professor Philip Playford: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/17798666/tsunami-finding-rocks-research/

    Apparently there are also similar deposits on cliff tops along the NSW coastline in the Sydney area.

    With regards,

  54. taobabe, I think you started off on the right foot. I’ve never seen anyone get away with the P-word before! Plenty have wished to though, I’m sure. Keep asking those questions.. Cheers, LK

  55. Mario Lento says:
    July 24, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    Thanks Mario.

    Since my 2008 article I have created a stream of articles at climaterealists.com which, taken together, build up to a comprehensive climate overview from which I have extracted what I call a New Climate Model.

    It is conceptual rather than mathematical but none the worse for that.

    Will shortly have a new website ready specifically devoted to it.

    Unfortunately Anthony classes the Climate Realists site as ‘Transcendent Rant and way out there theory’ but I hope that is due to the contributions of others than mine.

  56. Do you remember how for years you were told by people that magical backerd’s radiation was uh gonna… boil your eyes out and prove you wrong about what you know of the migration of heat from one object to another?

    Well, there’s a lot of posturing and stupidity going around regarding what the sun gives off: light,
    and what the earth gives off: light.

    They’re both the same thing and when you’re talking about light migrating from point to point of course you’re talking about photonic energy that either flies around, or it gets channeled when it’s entangled in the resonance spaces of an object’s electrons, in their orbitals. Nothing to see there, it’s well known it’s all the identical substance, and it’s also well known, there’s very little unusual, about the way it flows.

    Remember how, for many years you’ve been seeing it told to you by all kinds of wackos, that the amount of light in the atmosphere is building up, and it’s infrared light, at the frequency the earth gives off?
    And that it’s been proved there’s a connection with this light and the temperature of the earth?

    Well, here’s what the practitioners of magic gas know, about light: a giant infrared light on, in the sky over everyone’s head, 24/7/365.25.

    The American Meteorological Society: we’ve all heard of them:

    A paper. Ah, what’s it say?

    It says, “September 2011″. Ok.
    It says “Volume 24 Issue 18, ok…
    It says,
    “Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains”
    by
    “P. Jonathan Gero,
    Space Science and Engineering Center,
    University of Wisconsin, Madison, ”

    and

    “David D. Turner
    NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma,
    and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
    University of Wisconsin, Madison”

    Ok so they know kind of, how to read what Magic Gas is saying: it’s their very organization telling you, there’s radiation you don’t understand associated with climate, and that it’s rising.

    Well guess what? These men laid out infrared detectors
    checking on NOAA’s OWN STORY about there being a systematic connection to certain gases and infrared light.

    They put out infrared downwelling energy detectors, for fourteen, count-em fourteen, years,

    and when the fourteen years was up, while overall CO2 was rising, and man made CO2 was rising, guess what?

    =====
    The amount of earth frequency infrared light coming back out of the atmosphere, was less than when they started.
    =====
    This is the people telling you the original story: back radiation
    checking their own story

    and they discovered that across the southern Great Plains of North America, ground zero for the very foundational magic gas claims,

    while the amount of man made CO2 increased and overall CO2 increased,
    the amount of light they told you is in the atmosphere, because of CO2
    was less than when they started checking, nearly fifteen years before,

    using nearly three quarters of a million measurements.
    =====
    This is what those who believe in magic gas know, about photonic energy. They can’t even indicate to you, there’s a measurable component of light associated with their most fundamental and basic claim: that more gas, means more light: because that light is of itself the warmth being claimed to be generated by the presence of that gas.

    There’s no escaping it. The paper’s firewalled of course but someone somewhere can get it.

    Read what they say on the abstract here:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1?journalCode=clim

    =====
    That’s from the people telling you “This here’s real complicated. It’s so complicated you don’t even understand. Because you ain’t uh… scientist so yew just caint tale, awl about them heaters. They are some kind, of tricky. Boy, howdy. Lemme tale yew.”

    That’s their story. This is so complicated, they keep being wrong, because you’re stupid.

    On the other hand, there’s this guy:

    His name I got from here on these pages as he tried to get in a word edgewise among all the talk of magical back and forth-isms that happen without cause, to make the 168 watt in, 324 watt out magic gas mirror in GHE not be magical.

    His name is Nicola Scaffetta and he’s an Italian.

    He’s not into the “it’s awl two complicated for yew to understand” bit you hear from people telling you about a giant heater in the sky nobody can measure, but you’re crazy not to believe in.

    He linked to another of his own papers here one day and I went to his site because I recognize correct mathematics when I see it on a subject and saw he was no scammer on the take.

    I went to his web page at the University or wherever and in pure, dart board type fashion, picked as the first (it turned out the only relevant and clear one about climate) of his presentations,

    this:
    “Solar Activity and Climate
    Nicola Scafetta, ACRIM & Duke University

    The climate oscillations: analysis, implications and their astronomical origin.”
    =====
    For those of you who tire of the endless repetitions of seeing magic gas believers miss which way yet another instrument is going to point,

    this man’s presentation will be like lightening striking, to reveal the entire valley of climatology’s, utterly un-credible, zombies, unable to simply make the math, meet the markers.

    You think magic gassers have any credibility at all? Any at all?
    You’ll remember why everyone knows they don’t when you see this man explain the Sun’s effect on your globe.

    His English is very bad. When he says “oscillations” it sounds like “isolations”.
    When he says “induced” it sounds like “inn dew said”.

    When he says a few other words it’s really hard to understand and you have to have a full vocabulary in your head of the subjects at hand to derive the proper word to fill the gaps but it’s not too hard if you’re grasping his premise.

    Oh – the word “heliosphere” or whatever, regarding the Sun,
    he pronounces, as Latinized, “AY-lee-ohs-fear.”
    =====
    I’d suggest you simply cut to the chase but you kind of need to get into the flow of his deal, but if you’ve got any questions, you just cut forward, to about 20:00 where he says “this…black…LINE.”

    If you go there and see that and wonder if he developed it without fail or interruption during the previous twenty minutes, then go back to the beginning of it and watch what he says.

    Turns out the whole thing’s very simple. The inside of the sun’s not solid, and so the very most energetic point inside the sun, migrates around within it: and when planets’ orbits align one way, or the other, the gravitational pull, moves the gravitational center of the sun, affecting the amount of energy coming from the sun to any point on the map so to speak, around it.

    Very simple,
    Very clear.
    He should be asked to make his presentation for readers everywhere climate is analyzed.

    Nicola Scafetta:

  57. Paul,

    Why do you think that the Northern Hemisphere SST’s follow the solar de-acceleration, while the Southern Hemisphere SST follow the integrated SSN?

  58. Stephen Wilde says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:12 pm
    Since my 2008 article I have created a stream of articles at climaterealists.com which, taken together, build up to a comprehensive climate overview from which I have extracted what I call a New Climate Model.

    It is conceptual rather than mathematical but none the worse for that.

    Nice comment – climate is also as much biology as it is physics. Maths is over-rated in regard to climate – mathematicians rushing into climate are rather like German armies invading Soviet Russia (I’m just reading Anthony Beevor’s new WW2 history so its an analogy on my mind). If maths have to be involved, it needs to be the right sort of maths – that of dissipative nonequilibrium-nonlinear oscillatory systems. Not back of envelope arithmetic.

    FWIW I think there’s a danger the sun could become the new CO2 – proposed as the be all and end all of climate. Its not. I think small solar changes in output are best viewed as a weak forcer of an nonlinear oscillatory system. So the emergent wiggles will never exactly match the forcing wiggles and objective proof of the link with traditional linear based arithmetic and statistics will always be elusive. New nonlinear type tools are needed.

    Look forward to seeing the new website.

  59. It’s going to be so demoralizing to progresser environmentalist democrats when they find out planetary climate is the Sun’s fault stupid. I wonder if we could comfort them somehow?

  60. Of course its the sun. The LIA occurred during a solar quiet time as did lowered temperatures during the Dalton minimum. If the sun is now in a quiet period then it will get colder models or no models.

  61. The mainstream media has noticed the planet has stopped warming. The planet is starting to cool in response to the solar magnetic cycle 24 changes, with the most amount of cooling occurring in the same regions that warmed in the last 70 years.

    If I understanding the mechanisms the cooling will be anomalous: too much cooling and too rapid. A change back to 1960’s winters (starting this winter) and then a change back to 1850’s winters (in a couple of years).

    Significant and rapid cooling is only physically possible if the majority of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds which unlike the CO2 theoretical mechanism is reversible.

    Global cooling will be front page news. It will be interesting to see how quickly the scientific community abandons the extreme AGW hypothesis.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    A) The planet has warmed and cooled in the past. Solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the past warming and cooling cycles. The regions that warmed in the last 70 years are the same regions that warmed in the past when there was a solar grand maximum. There is smoking gun evidence that solar magnetic cycle changes cause cyclic climate change. The answer to the question how the sun causes cyclic climate change will be provided over the next few years by observations.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    The following graph is a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png

    This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years. http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png

    http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    B) Observations indicate there are one or more fundamental errors in the extreme AGW science OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.” (William: Hansen appears needs to check a calendar. Planetary temperature has not increased for 15 years.)….

    ….Yet it does not. In fact, it may actually be an overestimate. Over the past few years, measurements of aerosols have improved enormously. Detailed data from satellites and balloons suggest their cooling effect is lower (and their warming greater, where that occurs). The leaked assessment from the IPCC (which is still subject to review and revision) suggested that aerosols’ estimated radiative “forcing”—their warming or cooling effect—had changed from minus 1.2 watts per square metre of the Earth’s surface in the 2007 assessment to minus 0.7W/m ² now: ie, less cooling.

    One of the commonest and most important aerosols is soot (also known as black carbon). This warms the atmosphere because it absorbs sunlight, as black things do. The most detailed study of soot was published in January and also found more net warming than had previously been thought. It reckoned black carbon had a direct warming effect of around 1.1W/m ². Though indirect effects offset some of this, the effect is still greater than an earlier estimate by the United Nations Environment Programme of 0.3-0.6W/m ².
    All this makes the recent period of flat temperatures even more puzzling. If aerosols are not cooling the Earth as much as was thought, then global warming ought to be gathering pace. But it is not. Something must be reining it back. One candidate is lower climate sensitivity.
    A related possibility is that general-circulation climate models may be overestimating the impact of clouds (which are themselves influenced by aerosols). In all such models, clouds amplify global warming, sometimes by a lot. But as the leaked IPCC assessment says, “the cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models.” It is even possible that some clouds may dampen, not amplify global warming—which may also help explain the hiatus in rising temperatures. If clouds have less of an effect, climate sensitivity would be lower. ….

  62. David Gloss says:
    July 24, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    “I have only ever found one guy with a good theory on what is happening and why. His name is Fred Bailey and he has written books about his theory about solar chord science. His website is http://www.solarchords.com/. It is time to worry about coming crop failures in the northern hemisphere and the dwindling world food stocks due to ethanol farming.”

    Was reading some of the info on the site link you provided and came across his solar cycle predictions by his solar chord method. Predicted cycle 23 to be 10 years and it was in reality 12.1 years. Kind of shows his method is not reliable. Also predicts cycle 24 will be 10 years long, most likely incorrect also.

  63. henry asks
    “more cloudiness as a result of what?””
    stephen wilde says
    Longer lines of air mass mixing from more meridional jets.
    I think the increase in cosmic rays is merely coincidental and not causative.

    henry says
    I have a theory, although it is not really a theory, it is just common sense,
    namely that as global cooling continues, as proven, by my own data set,

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    &

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    and that of others,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    the temperature differential between the poles and the equator will become bigger.
    This would naturally cause more clouds at lower latitudes and less moisture being available for higher latitudes.
    But now, with more clouds at lower latitudes, you get less insolation in total, and this amplifies the cooling of earth. (Therefore sudden strong cooling periods are predictable….)
    Never mind that, the logical result is that at higher latitudes it will become both drier and cooler.
    I believe that this was the cause of the dust bowl droughts 1932-1939 on the Great Plains. (USA & CANADA)
    To check my own “common sense” , I looked at the daily rain reported by a weather station in Wellington, NZ, at -41 latitude. I find that between 1930 and 1939, the average rainfall was 14% lower than that from between 1940-2005. I think that amount is significant and it proves my point. (remember New Zealand are a few islands in the ocean where there is naturally always more moisture, unlike the Great Plains of the USA).

    With more than 7 billion people counting on their daily food from mother earth, doing nothing as Lord Monckton of Brenchley has suggested, might perhaps not be such a good idea.
    I copy and paste here my answer to him, made on another thread on same issue:
    henry says
    there was a time that I would probably agree with you on that but not anymore.
    The truth is that all current results show that global cooling will continue, especially when you look at things from 2002 (which includes one full solar cycle)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    Those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the global cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever.
    I have now finished my own investigations into all of this
    namely
    1 I took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data
    2 I made sure the sample was globally representative (most data sets aren’t)
    a) balanced by latitude (longitude does not matter)
    b) balanced 70/30 in or at sea/ inland
    c) all continents included (unfortunately I could not get reliable daily data going back 38 years from Antarctica,
    so there always is this question mark about that, knowing that you never can get a “perfect” sample)
    d) I made a special provision for months with missing data (i.e. not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats, but to average the results of that month in the year preceding and following )
    e) I did not look only at means (average daily temp.) like all other data sets, but also at maxima and minima…
    3) I determined at all stations the average change in temp. per annum from the average temperature recorded,
    over the period indicated.

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
    clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked//…
    5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps, versus time,
    ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
    At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
    I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling
    6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
    y= -0.000049×2 + 0.004267x – 0.056745
    r2=0.995
    That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball…
    7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, (10 years?) showed a curve:
    happening around 40 years ago,
    8) ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom…

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    the means table confirms that there is a bit of lag between maxima and means but even with means I can make parabolic fit with 95% confidence.
    Altogether, that means that we are cooling. Unfortunately, global cooling is not “good”.
    I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of warming, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that [latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind. According to my calculations, this will start around 2019 or 2020.
    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925).
    if you will argue with me on my results that we did not see anything catastrophic happening around 1972, when we also had a standstill, in the speed of warming, I would agree with that but remember this was at the height of warming causing more natural clouds and moisture. Now we are approaching the bottom, and there simply will be a lot less moist air going around…..
    WHAT MUST WE DO?
    1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
    2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
    3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),

  64. There are some on this blog say that a Maunder type of solar minimum may lower global temperatures by only 0.1C Lets review what happens during low sunspot activity . I question this claim of 0.1C.and think it may at least 10 times higher when measured annually.

    19 of the 30 coldest annual CET temperatures were during the three very low sunspot periods of Maunder Minimum. Dalton Minimum and the Modern Minimum of 1880-1910
    20 of the 30 coldest winter CET temperatures were during the same three major minimums, regular minimums, or sustained low solar sunspot years

    The period 1690-1699, the coldest decade, had an average annual temperature of 8.107C. The average annual decade temperature during 1981-2010 was 9.9 C. The annual average temperature 1940-1979 [the era before global warming was 9.48C] The annual average temperature shortly after MM, namely 1720-1729 was 9.3 C and 1730-1739 was 9.8 C
    The coldest year during the same MM period of 1690-1699, namely1695 had an annual temperature of 7.25 C, or almost 2.65 C lower than our recent experience over the last 30 years
    The average winter temperature during the same MM period was 2.59C. The average today is about 4 C
    The winter of 1684 was the coldest in CET records

    The same analysis of the period 1807-1816 during the Dalton Minimum shows annual temperatures of about 8.6C when annual sunspot number was zero during 1810. The winter of 1814 was the 4th coldest in CET records

    If we check the record , global temperatures tend to drop near the end of long solar cycles and at the beginning of the next decade like One can see the global temperatures decline at the end of cycles # 9,13,14,20.

  65. From a basic starting point the sun heats the earth by X amount. Additional factors come to play by the solar activity levels, which consequently affect a cascade of other variables which are chaotic. Throw in a mix bag of orbit variations and day length, lunar and galactic variances. Good luck with any modeling.

  66. I would like to see some evidence that some model predicted a pause. I have heard it claimed 2 a century. This appears to run contrary to CO2 warming theory especially since it was claimed that CO2 is the dominant driver and dominates natural variability.

    According to the theory, whenever there is an increase in global CO2 concentraions, there must be a corresponding increase in temperature; the temperature increase depending upon Climate Sensitivity. It is not sometimes there will be an increase in temperature, and some times there will not be any increase.

    Now of course, natural variation muddies the water. One year natural variation may act to warm temperatures (e., the super El Nino of 1998), and in other years natural variation may act to cool temperatures. The upshot of this is that when natural variation is positive, when coupled with increasing CO2 emissions then there will be a lot of warming. When natural vaition is neutral, when coupled with increasing CO2 emissions there will be just the usual CO2 induced warming (depending upon Climate Sensitivity). When natural variation is negative, it will go in some way to cancel out the warming effect of CO2 caused by increased CO2 emissions. If as was alleged, CO2 is the dominant driver, even in this scenario there will be some very slight warming. If of course, CO2 is not the dominant driver, then negative natural variation could cause a temperature drop.

    Now if models have predicted pauses of 10 to 15 yeras, they must have predicted periods when natural variation is a negative forcing exactly equal to the CO2 forcing brought about by rising CO2 emissions. So what negative natural variation did these model runs predict? To answer this, would help us to understand natural variation.

    Further, during which periods did the models predict the pause and in particular at what CO2 levels. Given that CO2 emissions are rising unabated, the extent of the negative forcing of natural variation will have to be stronger during the second of the two predicted pauses. In other words what I am saying is that if temperatures were flat between say 1940 to 1960 (I have not checked, this is just an assumption being made for the purposes of argument0 then it would be easier for natural variation to cancel out the positive forcing of CO2 if at the time the CO2 levels were say 360 to 370ppm However, if we look at the period say 1998 to date, it is more difficult to cancel out the CO2 forcing now that CO2 levels are 390 to 400ppm. The negative natural variation forcing has to now be greater than it was during the period of 1940 to 1960.

    This of course causes a major problem for the warmists since they were arguing that by late 1970s the forcing associated with CO2 at 1970s levels was now greater than natural variation such that the only thing that could explain the late 1970s onwards warming was CO2. But today the CO2 forcing is greater (given that CO2 levels have now reached 400ppm) such that it now has to be recognised that (i) natural variation is stronger than initially envisaged and upon which all the claims of cAGW were made, and (ii) given that natural variation is stronger than they envisaged to be the case, it can no longer be alleged that the only explanation for the post 1970s warming is CO2. It could now be natural variation.

    As I see it, the pause at today’s high level of CO2 is fatal for an alarmist theory, and the only salvagable position is low Climate Sensitivity. This would not be a problem but for the political capital invested in the alarmist theory.

    PS. I am one of those who considers that Climate Sensitivity is presently impossible to calculate from the limited data sets avilable (all of which have fundamandal issues, some more so than others), and I have yet to see compelling evidence that there is such a concept, or that CO2 at current levels at this stage of the Holocene plays any measurable role in influencing temperature.. .

  67. If anything, higher CO2 concentrations dilutes the strong heat absorbing water vapor, thus reducing the atmospheres ability to retain heat. Other consequence of increasing CO2 is the greening of the planet; impossible to calculate the impact on global temperatures.

  68. Richard Vada says:
    July 24, 2013 at 11:18 pm
    //////////////////////////////////////////

    For many years I have seen people suggesting that if back radiation is increasing this would have an adverse influence on telescopes and that ever increasing corrections would have to be made to these instruments to compensate for/offset the additional DWLWIR being caused by increased GHGs. These people have suggested that there is no findings that ever more corrections are being required, and hence this suggests that DWLWIR is not increasing.

    I have not seen any data on the point, but it is a point of interest.

  69. phlogiston said:

    “So the emergent wiggles will never exactly match the forcing wiggles and objective proof of the link with traditional linear based arithmetic and statistics will always be elusive. New nonlinear type tools are needed.”

    Agreed. The best we can do is try to determine the general trend at any given moment. The interactions between solar and oceanic variability are hugely variable on their own and will be further confounded by inherent chaotic variability.

    To determine the general trend we need to find a formula that relates the pattern of global air circulation to a point where the energy budget is approximately in balance.

    Measurement of climate zone positions, sizes and intensities plus the total length of all the jet stream tracks would be a good start.

  70. Measurement of the gradient of tropopause height from equator to poles would also be useful.

  71. Henry asked
    “more cloudiness as a result of what?””
    stephen wilde says
    Longer lines of air mass mixing from more meridional jets.
    I think the increase in cosmic rays is merely coincidental and not causative.

    henry says
    I have a theory, although it is not really a theory, it is just common sense,
    namely that as global cooling continues, as proven, by my own data set,

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    &

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    and that of others,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

    the temperature differential between the poles and the equator will become bigger.
    This would naturally cause more clouds at lower latitudes and less moisture being available for higher latitudes.
    But now, with more clouds at lower latitudes, you get less insolation in total, and this amplifies the cooling of earth. (Therefore sudden strong cooling periods are predictable….)
    Never mind that, the logical result is that at higher latitudes it will become both drier and cooler.
    I believe that this was the cause of the dust bowl droughts 1932-1939 on the Great Plains. (USA & CANADA)
    To check my own “common sense” , I looked at the daily rain reported by a weather station in Wellington, NZ, at -41 latitude. I find that between 1930 and 1939, the average rainfall was 14% lower than that from between 1940-2005. I think that amount is significant and it proves my point. (remember New Zealand are a few islands in the ocean where there is naturally always more moisture, unlike the Great Plains of the USA).

    With more than 7 billion people counting on their daily food from mother earth, doing nothing as Lord Monckton of Brenchley has suggested, might perhaps not be such a good idea.
    I copy and paste here my answer to him, made on another thread on same issue:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/21/ten-years-of-accelerated-global-warming/#comment-1369292

  72. To Richard Vada:

    Good information on the Gero & Turner paper. Actual measurements…
    WHAT A CONCEPT!

  73. Larry Kirk says:
    July 24, 2013 at 10:45 pm
    taobabe, I think you started off on the right foot. I’ve never seen anyone get away with the P-word before! Plenty have wished to though, I’m sure. Keep asking those questions.. Cheers, LK
    ________

    :-) I am reading all the comments and learning so much. Thanks for putting out all this info. I feel like I’m in a room full of scientists and professors. LOL. j/k

  74. Stephen Wilde: I think it will be found that the current recharge is a weak affair due to increased global cloudiness since 2000.

    Is there evidence for increased global cloudiness since 2000?

  75. Salvatore del Prete: I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.

    I always appreciate a nice, unambiguous prediction. You are not of the opinion that cooling began already, I take it.

  76. Matthew Marler asked:

    “Is there evidence for increased global cloudiness since 2000?”

    Yes.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

    “Earth’s Albedo has risen in the past few years, and by doing reconstructions of the past albedo, it appears that there was a significant reduction in Earth’s albedo leading up to a lull in 1997. 1998 has been touted as one of the warmest years on record, and the time lag may have had to do with the thermal inertia of the oceans. Then the albedo increased, making the earth more reflective. Clouds have the greatest potential for changing albedo on a short time scale.”

  77. Salvatore Del Prete says:

    July 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    Leif Svalgaard, Willis Eschenbach don’t have any understanding of thresholds and why sometimes solar changes will result in a major climate change ,while at other times they will not. Many times solar changes are not to a degree of magnitude great enough to flip the climate into another climatic regime, or even be the dominate factor in promoting which way the climate may go. They can’t grasp that simple fact, and therefore reach all bogus conclusions, when it comes to solar /climate relationships.
    You will both however be proven wrong before the decade ends.

    Nicola Scafetta , is more with it but is still lacking.

    Nicola Scafetta does not understand thresholds (abrupt climate change),does not understand(like his counterparts) how sometimes solar changes might cause a major climatic shift while at other time hardly any.

    He does not understand the beginning state of the climate will give a different end result even if the same forcings are applied to the climate.
    Does not understand all the secondary effects which will come from a long prolonged solar minimum period.

    He tries to fit everthing into a neat cycle, and thinks climate change is slow and gradual ,inspite of all the past evidence to the contary.

    He still buys into the greenhouse gas effect (ridiculous) as a factor in the determination of the climate, when the reality is the greenhouse gas effect is a product of the climate.

    The state of climate science is a mess and all of you three have made major contributions, to the mess.

  78. The short answer is yes. But, the change will be slow; a trend of only about 0.1K per decade, maybe twice that fast over land.

    Nearly everyone who is paying attention is aware that about 95% of the energy retained by the planet is stored in the oceans. What is less well understood is that this means that the planet has a huge effective thermal capacitance (thermal capacitance is like inertia in a mechanical system). This results in a time constant (the time it takes the system to reach 63.2% of its final (asymptotic) value after a step change in forcing) of 5 years or more which absolutely prohibits the rapid year-to year changes that are reported by the several agencies. Thus the reporting contains substantial random uncertainty (equivalent s.d. of approximately ±0.1C). http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    The IPCC and the consensus have made several egregious mistakes that have misled a lot of people. Some of the mistakes are discussed at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/

  79. Matthew thanks. Time will tell and we will know before this decade is out who was most correct and who was wrong.

    I think the cooling will start within 6 months of solar cycle 24 maximum ending, but ocean heat content lag has to always be considered.

    This factor however should become less of a factor as we proceed through this decade and very quiet solar conditions prevail.

    I am looking for a further decline in the AO oscillation to more negative values once very quiet solar conditions once again start to take effect.

  80. I wonder if any of you guys here actually realize that a “quiet” sun, is actually a hotter sun, especially in terms of UV. Dark spots on the sun mean cooler areas. No spots on the sun mean more high energy, especially lower wavelengths. This affects the production of ozone, peroxides and nitrous oxides, lying TOA, deflecting more sunlight to space.So, a hotter sun, makes earth cooler.
    I think there are not too many people who figured it out, though,,,

    Let me know if you agree with me on that? If you miss this, you miss the whole global cooling story,
    i.e. why it will continue to cool, until ca. 2040

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

  81. Henry.

    Sunspots are indeed cooler areas but is their coolness not more than offset by the hotter areas around them and it is those hotter areas that fire off more energetic wavelengths is it not?

  82. Stephen Wilde says
    Sunspots are indeed cooler areas but is their coolness not more than offset by the hotter areas around them and it is those hotter areas that fire off more energetic wavelengths is it not?

    Henry@stephen wilde
    I am actually looking at it from the other end, where I have proven (for myself) a link between increasing ozone (& others) and declining maximum temperatures.
    The increase in ozone production TOA only makes sense if we assume more E-UV bombardment.. From which it follows that a “quiet” sun is somehow producing more E-UV… ?
    As you know, TSI does not vary much, but I suspect there is some variation in the distribution of TSI, shifting the solar irradiance peak a bit to left, but overall, energy output looks much the same…

    btw, you did not answer me, on a previous post, either positive or negative, where I posed that in a cooling world (from the top) you would naturally expect more clouds and rain at lower latitudes, thereby increasing albedo and amplifying the cooling (on the bottom).

  83. No one really had an answer, except to say that this “message” about pauses had not been communicated widely.

    It would be interesting to see ANY evidence that such possible pauses had ever been mentioned, even in passing, anywhere in the ‘literature’. Retro claims of past predictions which qualified or contradicted the consensus extraordinary and need extraordinary evidence.

  84. Ian,
    only have time to draft informal notes:
    SH: high volume high heat capacity, largely ring-shaped westerlies — big role for accumulating heat storage
    NH: strongly contrasting, angled midlatitude land/ocean gradients – & hence flows — big role for modulation of circulatory geometry (temperature, mass, & velocity are coupled, NASA JPL reminds us…)
    NH sun-modulated (cross-ENSO average) surface circulation (wind) controls ocean welling (up & down) & evaporation, atmospheric water firehosing, and ice extent (a binary variable) — on/off circulatory switch (meridional vs. zonal, equatorward vs. poleward, & low momentum vs. high momentum) — so what matters is persistence in one state (mean large-scale circulatory configuration) or the (topologically-contrasting) other — varies with changing cycle length. Binary (i.e. discrete) is key = why NH response follows solar cycle phase differential.
    Abrupt surface water – mass & state – spatial distribution (contrast) change ~1920s.
    Capturing regional variability in some areas may be possible via tuned differential equation (as I suggested a few years ago) — investigating — very promising preliminary results for Pacific Northwest of North America — will report again in days/weeks ahead…

  85. @ phlogiston

    not just nonlinear — observation suggests multipath is even more important (e.g. interannual) — maybe conceptualize it (for now) as spatiotemporally turbulent mixing – riding a longer wave

  86. HenryP

    I agree that a cooling world has more clouds and rainfall at lower latitudes. That is where the more meridional, equatorward jets come in.

    I also agree that somehow we need ozone to increase above the tropopause in the higher latitudes when the sun is quiet so as to warm the stratosphere above the poles forcing down tropopause height at the poles relative to the equator which then leads to the more meridional, equatorward jets.

    There have been reports that contrary to conventional climatology ozone decreases higher up in the atmosphere when the sun is active and increases when it is inactive.

    The mesosphere and stratosphere cooled with less ozone during the late 20th century warming spell but that seems to have stopped with the quiet sun and there may be a slight recovery by now.

    There are lots of upper atmosphere processes that can affect ozone quantities above the tropopause and they can involve both particle and wavelength changes so I am currently unable to attribute precise causation.

    Therefore I simply say that it is changes in the overall mix of particles and wavelengths that alter the ozone creation/destruction balance and furthermore I suspect that the variations have different effects at different levels.

    The net effect of such variations is to alter the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles to allow latitudinal climate zone shifting beneath the tropopause.

    That then affects total cloudiness and the amount of energy able to enter the oceans to fuel the system.

  87. I like to keep things simple. If I go outside on a cloudy day, and the sun suddenly comes out, there’s a dramatic difference in the thermal energy reaching me. I’m sure that if CO2 concentration suddenly dropped by 25%, I wouldn’t notice the difference. Therefore I conclude that cloud density and cover would be a major driver of our climate. Just a small long term shift in average cloud cover would be very significant – much more than CO2. Yet all the IPCC seems to say is that they don’t understand clouds, so ignore them.

    I know CERN is working on this, with nothing significant reported yet. I also understand the relationship of negative feedback – increased heat/more water vapour/ more cloud/ less heat. I can’t help thinking that cloud influence pales most other things into insignificance.

  88. henryy@stephen wilde

    yes it seems we are now getting on the same wavelength…. good to exchange some ideas with you… thanks.

    just to summarize to you all my results
    1)maximum temps starting increasing around 1950,
    ozone started dropping from 1951
    2) maximum temps. are falling from 1995
    ozone is increasing from 1995, both NH and SH, but % wise the increase in the SH is more spectacular. SH has all the oceans, our energy store. Increasing ozone (+peroxides + nitrous oxides) bounces more sun light off to space so that in total less energy is going into the oceans (SH, predominantly).

    hence we are cooling, from the top.

    3) Due to this, as agreed, higher latitudes > [40] will get some less clouds and moisture, and it will also become cooler there. I have proven this as well by studying some random rainfall data.
    The lower latitudes 30 > x > -30 will get more clouds and rain, on average. But insolation at the equator is 684 whereas on average it is 342, so with the higher albedo, due to the increased clouds at lower latitudes, we are cooling from the bottom as well.

    At this stage, we must realize that these changes are not much, in real terms, but they are now going to add up and I promise you that we all will be shivering from the cold, in about ten years from now. Unfortunately.
    (my wife still laughs at me when I tell here it has been globally cooling and we already dropped 0.2 degrees C or K in the last dozen years or so)

    4) now to agree on the mechanism is the important issue.

    In the end, I think William Arnold had it right in the first place.

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    to quote from the above paper:
    “A Weather Cycle as observed in the Nile Flood cycle, Max rain followed by Min rain, appears discernible with maximums at 1750, 1860, 1950 and minimums at 1670, 1800, 1900 and a minimum at 1990 predicted.
    The range in meters between a plentiful flood and a drought flood seems minor in the numbers but real in consequence….

    end quote

    According to my table for maxima, end of warming was around 1995, and not 1990 as William Arnold predicted.This is looking at energy-in. I think earth reached its maximum output (means) a few years later, around 1998/1999.

    Anyway, either way, (a few years error is fine!), look again at my best sine wave plot for my data,now see:

    1900 minimum flooding of the Nile – end of the warming
    1950 maximum flooding – end of cooling
    1995 minimum flooding – end of warming.
    predicted 2035-2040 – maximum flooding – end of cooling.

    The flooding of the Nile follows the other observations, exactly, i.e. that means more rain and clouds between [30] latitudes from 1995-2040.
    Seeing that he had the dates right, in line with my data events on ozone and maxima, I think the rest of that report might also be correct. It is our planets exerting a weight on the centre of the sun, changing not its output so much as the distribution of the TSI, especially E-UV.

    Do you perhaps have a correlation of E-UV against SSN?

    In hindsight, what a pity of all our time and resources wasted, on the idea that it is the CO2 that is warming our planet….

    But what is going to happen when we reach the bottom of the wave? That is where we have almost a complete standstill in the speed of cooling. Any ideas? I am convinced 1932-1939 drought is going to happen again…..

  89. HenryP.

    I think we are getting very close but a couple of differences remain.

    I don’t think it is the amount of ozone above the tropopause that has a direct effect on climate. Instead it has an indirect effect by altering the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.

    The amount of cloud (total global albedo) is the factor that directly affects temperatures by affecting the amount of solar energy that gets into the oceans.

    In effect we have three factors capable of amplifying the effect of minor TSI changes compounding each other.

    The shift in the mix of particles and wavelengths first alters tropopause heights which is one amplification factor then that change in heights affects global albedo which is another.and then the change in energy entering the oceans is yet another amplifying factor.

    The result is shifting climate zones to an extent way out of proportion with what the small changes in TSI could cause.

    But in the end all those changes are of no account in the long term because the climate zone shifts are themselves the negative system response cancelling out the thermal effect of the change in solar output.

    It is the latitudinal climate zone shifts that regulate the flow of energy through the system in order to maintain long term stability.

    As regards ‘the bottom of the wave’ I think it will be decades away unless the sun gets more active soon.

    In the meantime we should see a general cooling develop with more atmospheric blocking systems, colder middle latitudes and more extremes as the more equatorward polar air masses crash against the warm equatorial air masses.

    The ways it can all play out are infinite on a local level but the general trend will be colder stormier and latitudinally broader mid latitude climate zones.

    Lots of people have noted he relevant correlations and the cyclical nature of it all but so far as I know no one else has proposed solar induced changes in the gradient of the equator to pole tropopause heights with all the climate and energy budget consequences that follow from that.

  90. henry@stephen wilde
    you did not say what you think of william arnold’s theory? Is it the planets causing the obvious 90-odd year weather cycle?

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    we reach the bottom in a couple of years?
    The planet theory fits like a glove; it (the planetary system) is like an elastic band, preventing over-cooling and run away warming. It means of course that if a catastrophe hits one of those big planets we are in deep trouble…

  91. Hi Henry.

    It doesn’t matter to me how the solar variations are caused.

    It might be planetary influences or internal mechanics or a mixture of both.

    My point is that whatever forces seek to cause thermal disruption within a planetary atmosphere the response of the atmosphere is always the same.

    Quite simply the entire circulation pattern reconfigures to adjust the rate of energy throughput and thereby negate the effect of the forcing mechanism.

    Note too that there is more than a 90 year cycle involved. The sun varies on a millennial time scale.

    In the oceans the Thermohaline Circulation is up to 1500 years long.

    Our emissions come nowhere in comparison.

  92. Salvatore Dep (Del?) Prete says
    I am in pretty much agreement with Stephen Wilde’s most recent postings. Mty studies lead to the same basic conclusions

    henry says
    yes, I do remember that at some stage you called the work of William Arnold in that paper that I quoted to Stephen Wilde:

    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf

    completely “obsolete” or something to that effect. But, please, do elaborate now, as to why you think William Arnold is/was wrong in pointing to the planets for the (apparent) change in weather (on earth), more specifically which part in the paper do you object to??

  93. Paul Vaughan said:
    “Have you yet realized that terrestrial & solar jets are being controlled by the same thing?”

    If the change in particles and wavelengths is caused by changes in the solar jets then that would be a logical observation but I don’t need to consider that for my purposes.

    Note too that the solar jets would still not be the whole story because the Earth’s jets are controlled more directly by the net energy budget and the solar effect is heavily modulated by the lagging ocean response.

    My position is that anything that affects the net energy budget will affect Earth’s jets and climate zones because their movement is the negative system response adjusting the flow of energy through the Earth system.

  94. Stephen, seems we’ve had a misunderstanding. I’m saying a (previously) lurking variable is driving 2 systems in parallel …but I suppose this probably doesn’t matter for your purposes.

    Ian,
    a few more informal notes:
    Southern Ocean is very well linked and mixed hard.
    Northern basins: not so much …so they’ll highlight what’s happening instantaneously. The instantaneous signal is there in the SH too, but it doesn’t often stand out relative to the weighty background.

    @ Mario Lento (July 27, 2013 at 10:42 pm)

    Thanks Mario.
    …and it gets even better – (more details in the days/weeks ahead…)

  95. Paul Vaughan said:

    “a (previously) lurking variable is driving 2 systems in parallel”

    Hi Paul.

    That might be relevant to me if you suggest that the lurking variable affects the Earth’s jets directly without involving the sun’s jets first.

    That is possible in principle if you are considering planetary movements but I don’t see that as able to significantly affect the temperature of the stratosphere and the equator to pole tropopause height gradient.

    It seems to me to be far too small an effect to produce the air circulation shifts that we observe.

  96. Stephen, there seems to be another misunderstanding.
    I’ve made NO mention of “planetary effects”.

    Far from being a “small effect”, it’s 80%:

    What you see there is SST & summaries of sunspot numbers (and NOTHING else).
    All that’s left in the residuals is interannual.

    You prefer words.
    I prefer quantitative illustrations.

    Be careful not to disagree with yourself!!
    [ :

    Cheers

  97. Ok Paul.

    So what do you say is the previously lurking variable?

    Must be powerful if it accounts for 80% of observed variability.

  98. Ok Stephen
    Ok Paul.
    Are we are all agreed now here it is mainly the planets exerting a force on the sun that affects the weather on earth?
    Then we are back to where William Arnold was / philosophized, (before the CO2 nonsense)
    -God bless him, does he still live?-
    If I read his dials correctly the planets (Jupiter and Uranus) will re-align similarly to where we were in 1934, in 2017. That would mean we only have a few years left before the dust bowl droughts 1932-1939

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

    I am trying to warn people of an impending disaster.

    I can see from my own data

    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    that we could reach the bottom (constant speed= no difference in temps. = no difference in pressure= no rain ) around 2016
    but William Arnold was out by at least 5 years in his prediction on the end of warming….
    There could be a lag…?

    please help me, if you can?

  99. @ Stephen Wilde

    Pumping rate & persistence, as I’ve shown. Temperature, mass, & velocity are coupled. The mainstream simply underestimated how large scale circulation mixes stuff around in 4D. Keep in mind we’re looking at point samples & 1D cross-sections — hence the initial need to start with EOP to get solid quantitative constraints on solar-terrestrial circulatory pulsing. (When time permits I’ll update & reorganize some old graphs to give a refresher on that.)

    btw: It’s 97% for the local Pacific Northwest example I gave. If you look hard enough near the bottom of that graph, you’ll see a faint grey line that accounts for less than 3% of the variation, which is about 0.5 degrees Celsius per century — that’s all that’s left to be shared by UHI, CO2, LIA rebound, &/or whatever else.

    @ HenryP

    Once again: No planets. Just SST & sunspot numbers.
    I stick to exploration. I’ve no interest in forecasting.
    I respect your interests Henry. Best Regards.

  100. @Paul

    I get that, SST can be correlated with SSN, but I hope you will see that SSN can be correlated with planetary movement.
    This is what the paper from William Arnold is all about.
    My best fit for the drop in maximum temps. shows that around 40 years ago counted from 2012, we reached the maximum speed of warming. All fits (with high correlation) show that in 1995 we turned from warming to cooling (as far as maxima is concerned). The difference between 1995 and 1972 is 23.
    That is one node, as William Arnold pointed out. He was just out by 5 years but he did not have my data to work with so his beginning and ending could be a bit wrong, for the present. The next node (quarter part of the a-c wave) could be between 22 and 29 years. I am trying to narrow this down from his notes on the planetary movements. Unfortunately I never studied astronomy. I have no clue as to what his dials there mean, but I suppose you don’t know either.
    If it is 22, we could arrive there in 1995+22= 2017. That would be the beginning of the major drought times for the higher latitudes because there will be less moisture and the speed of cooling is constant for a period of time around the bottom of the a-c wave – no acceleration. Already, there should be a noticeable decrease in precipitation on the Great Plains as we are curving down, no doubt blamed on “man made climate change”.
    (Hoover dam water is lower than normal?).
    So, truly there is and there will be climate change with a major impact on the food production in USA and Canada. It is just not man made…..

Comments are closed.