Denmark gets a dose of global cooling in major newspaper

Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!

JP_1Pierre Gosselin writes:

Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?

Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.

Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!

Hat-tip: NTZ reader Arne Garbøl

The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

So now even the once very green Danish media is now spreading the seeds of doubt. So quickly can “settled science” become controversial and hotly disputed. The climate debate is far from over. And when it does end, it looks increasingly as if it’ll end in favor of the skeptics.

The JP writes that “many will be startled” by the news that a little ice age is a real possibility. Indeed, western citizens have been conditioned to think that nothing except warming is possible. Few have prepared for any other possibility.

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

I find this part quite relevant, as I have also asked this obvious question.

Gosselin writes: Jylland Posten ends its 2-page feature story with questions and comments by Svensmark:

How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

The “missing heat went to the deep ocean” meme being pushed by the Skeptical Science Kidz is pretty much about as relevant to the reality of climate change as their Nazi role playing.

Read the entire essay here, well worth your time:

http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/09/major-danish-daily-warns-globe-may-be-on-path-to-little-ice-age-much-colder-winters-dramatic-consequences/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Global cooling and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

245 Responses to Denmark gets a dose of global cooling in major newspaper

  1. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    CO2 is innocent – release CO2. Witnesses were lying!

  2. Otter says:

    I had been told by one of my detractors, where I post my skeptic articles, that skepticism is ‘a dying reactionary movement,’ ostensibly existing in the US and nowhere else.

    I look forward to shoving things like this in his face.

  3. mikelowe2013 says:

    Don’t worry, Otter, skepticism is well and growing in New Zealand and Australia also!

  4. The deep sea warming meme can simply be falsified. It’s assessed that the thermohaline current brings the thermal energy down, for instance when it sinks in the Nordic Sea. But it sinks because it cooled down due to evaporation and due to the resultant increased salinity

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

    As the surface waters get denser it sinks. If it doesn’t cool so much because of global warming, then it simply won’t sink. You cannot convect heat downwards.

  5. Mike from the cold side of the Sierra says:

    I wonder if weather underground will pick up and run with this story ? It has the alarmist aspect of too cold for comfort but I tend to doubt they will.

  6. cynical_scientist says:

    Otter says:
    I had been told . . . that skepticism is ‘a dying reactionary movement,’ ostensibly existing in the US and nowhere else.

    “Reactionary” – an interesting word; the kind of word that tells you a lot more about the people using it than the people it is applied to.

  7. Garfy says:

    read Marcel Leroux –
    if I remember well, some sixtiy years ago – the weather was very during hot during the hay period, and the winter period terribly icy ……..

  8. Garfy says:

    Sorry please read : some sity years ago, the weather was very hot during the hay period (july ….°

  9. AndyG55 says:

    Unfortunately, CO2 levels just above biosphere subsistence only help when its warmer. :-(

    Those countries like the UK, that have decimated their coal fired electricity supply, are in for several horrific decades.. just like the population agenda specified.

    Notice that Germany has managed to avoid the EU mandate against coal fired power….. how convenient is that !

  10. Robin Hewitt says:

    But if the sun is causing a little ice age, that could be used to explain the current lack of warming. The Warmistas can argue that the CO2 warming is there as predicted but masked out by the change in solar activity. This could get the CAGW gravy train right back on track, they can predict global boiling as the new LIA finishes at some point conveniently in the future.

  11. Bob says:

    I suppose all the global warming refugees will be heading to frozen Denmark. Predictions of future climate are beginning to seem like so much background noise. At least this one is based on similarity to previous events.

  12. cui bono says:

    How does the heat get to the deep oceans? By those mysterious and pesky ‘warmion’ particles quantum tunnelling their way from the land surface to the Mariana Trench. :-)

  13. lgl says:

    “How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part?”

    Oh not that silliness again. Why is it so hard to understand the 0-2000m will always lag the 0-700m layer since the ocean is warmed from the top?
    But the warming of 0-2000m has remained fairly constant at 0.5 W/m2 since the 70s so it doesn’t explain the flattening of the surface temps. The forcing has remained high but not increased the last decade.

  14. William Astley says:

    The warmists have left themselves no way out after announcing the science is settled and demanding that trillions of dollars must be spent on green scams to avoid catastrophic warming. After 20 years of fighting the climate war using 24/7 propaganda, it will be quite difficult for the warmists to admit the extreme AGW hypothesis was completely incorrect and the majority of the warming in the last 50 years and 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.

    If the planet is cooling and continues to cool there will be a steady stream of news reports related to cooling. To push the extreme AGW hypothesis the warmists have focused the public and the media’s attention on planetary temperature. It is likely not possible for the warmists to avoid a discussion of global cooling, if global cooling does occur.

    http://northwestpassage2013.blogspot.ca/2013/08/dodos-delight-worst-ice-in-89-years.html

    “Yesterday PM was the first time I realised that actually this expedition may be halted by the ice… I really didn’t think that after 89 years the ice would be the worst in all that time (allegedly), but early this morning I was looking at the ice chart and it really is impassable for a stretch of 350-400 miles. …. …. The normal navigable passage season is in August and September, and as we are basically treading water every day that passes makes success less likely – at least in 2013. Whilst the past two decades have seen the ice melt increase in longevity year on year, 2013 had been to date a reversion of the trend. Many are talking about it being a “bad ice year”.
    We are in communication with a couple of other boats attempting the passage both from our side (the West) and from the Atlantic. All are concerned. At present the ice is between 5 & 7/10ths from Barrow East for a distance of approx. 350 miles – impassable by most yachts, including Dodo’s Delight.”

    Comment:
    It appears the sun is moving towards a Maunder like solar magnetic minimum. In the past the planet cooled when the sun was in a Maunder like minimum solar magnetic minimum. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. The regions that warmed in the last 50 and the last 150 years are the same regions that cyclically warmed and cooled in the past when there were solar magnetic cycle changes. The past Maunder like solar magnetic cycle minimums lasted for 30 to 100 years and the cold period lasted for 75 to 150 years as the solar magnetic cycle was slow to start up after a like Maunder like deep solar minimum.

  15. Patrick says:

    “mikelowe2013 says:

    August 10, 2013 at 2:36 am”

    In Australia? No way…CO2 driven climate change alarmism is rife here.

  16. richardscourtney says:

    lgl:

    In your post at August 10, 2013 at 3:50 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386054
    You say

    The forcing has remained high but not increased the last decade.

    Over the last decade there has been no discernible increase to global air and surface temperatures while, as you admit, there has been no discernible increase to ocean temperatures,

    Atmospheric CO2 concentration is the major “forcing” according to the AGW hypothesis.
    Atmospheric CO2 concentration has continued its increase over the last decade, and you say this has not increased “forcing”.

    Thankyou for confirming that the AGW scare is now demonstrated to have been without any foundation and is refuted by reality.

    Richard

  17. Txomin says:

    @Robin Hewitt

    Yes and no. Remember that human activities could indeed have a warming effect yet the planet cool and vice versa. The sheer forces at play are potentially capable of confounding it all. This, however, is a disaster to CAGW whiners because they claim all other factors have been accounted for and dismissed. The science is settled and all that bull. Thus, the heat-in-my-pants theory of deep ocean whodunits.

  18. cynical_scientist says:

    At least the added CO2 will help plants cope better with the adverse weather, and may mitigate it to some extent as well.

    Hey look at that – A PREVIEW BUTTON – Fantastic!

  19. John West says:

    lgl says:

    “Why is it so hard to understand the 0-2000m will always lag the 0-700m layer since the ocean is warmed from the top?

    LOL, you’re also saying the 0-700m layer should warm first.

  20. lgl says:

    John

    Yes, didn’t it?

  21. ‘The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“ ‘

    When they did that, this led to several murder attempts against people affiliated with the newspaper. Let’s see what the fundamentalist response will be like this time.

  22. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    I’m going to stick my neck out and say we should not be trying to counteract doomsday prophecies of global warming with equally unsupported predictions about ice ages (mini or otherwise). I don’t believe we can predict with any credibility what the climate will be doing in 10 years or more; and we won’t know what the climate is actually doing until it has done it. Let’s stick to what we know and be honest about what we don’t.

    Do not be influenced by occasional “skeptical” articles that appear in the MSM. They have not changed; their goal remains to sell advertising at the highest rates their circulation can justify. They have not magically acquired either integrity or diligence previously lacking; they are just test marketing a different message to see if it garners a new or larger audience. If it does, they will ride it as long as it produces a revenue stream. If it doesn’t they will find a new issue to hype into a crisis.

  23. Blade says:

    William Astley [August 10, 2013 at 4:08 am] says:

    The warmists have left themselves no way out after announcing the science is settled and demanding that trillions of dollars must be spent on green scams to avoid catastrophic warming.

    That’s so very well put. Kudos!

    P.S. I see a preview option on WordPress for the first time! Unfortunately it isn’t functional on Opera version 11. Darn.

  24. ozspeaksup says:

    I was laughing loudly when ABc agw enthusiasts here in aus were quite puzzled and miffed that their recent poll on whats of concern to aussies before the election had CC rating rather LOW on the publics list of priorities:-)
    twould appear while the media of a certain stripe keep pushing the fluff and fear items, a hell of a lot of people have woken up or tuned out or both:-)
    theres truly only so long you can use fear as a means of control, and they overplayed it bigtime.
    especially as people take notice of the local enviro and find little to no change.

  25. RockyRoad says:

    Alan Watt: Point is, WE are not doing the counteracting–it is a newspaper who has been part of the Warmista propaganda machine that’s doing it–primarily as a consequence of system changes in both solar output and temperature declines.

    So this is something relatively new–they are indeed acquiring “integrity or diligence previously lacking” (which, we don’t know) but whatever their driving force, they seem to be aware of current trends and are willing to do a news piece that doesn’t bode well for the Warmistas.

    And once the Warmista meme has been dismantled, it won’t be long before insane policies pushed by the EU and other countries will be dismantled also. I predict that soon we’ll start to see such news items in newspapers across the globe, which will forever destroy the “Climate by CO2″ fiction.

    This is a whole new ballgame–and a welcome one at that.

  26. HenryP says:

    I still wonder why it is so difficult for someone to get the same results as I did:
    it will continue to cool until 2038 or 2039 and by that time we will be back to where we were in 1950. There will not be an ice age.
    But we probably will have the droughts, due to a lack of moisture and weather….
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  27. RockyRoad says:

    lgl says:
    August 10, 2013 at 4:33 am

    John

    Yes, didn’t it?

    Are you claiming the warming of the 0-700m layer was caused by an increase in CO2?

    Is that what you believe to be the cause of the “0.5 W/m2 since the 70s” heat source?

  28. stan stendera says:

    I told you so a long time ago. The Berlin wall of denial has cracked down to its very foundation with this article, The water of truth is gushing through the crack. Now, watch the warmists employ their crowbars to widen the crack with their outlandish statements.

  29. Greg says:

    From the full article:
    The JP then quotes Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who says these consequences could be dramatic: ” It indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age….”

    More could be / may be scare stories, now going the other way.

    Dalton minimum solar conditions is probably realistic but that does not mean we will experience D.M. temperatures in view of where temeratures are currently.

  30. Bruce Cobb says:

    Reality and true science have shown CAGW to be false. Climate’s sensitivity to the increased C02 is so low that it can’t be ferreted out. Natural forces are, and always have been driving our climate. That is the breakthrough. The very fact that the MSM is beginning to carry articles such as this one, exposing more people to the other side is huge. Once the bogus CAGW dies, then and only then can the real scientific debate begin about how much of an influence the sun has, and how much cooling we can expect.

  31. Scarface says:

    @lgl

    Water with a temperature of 4C is the most dense. That’s why the temperature at the bottom of the sea will be roughly that. And that is why the missing heat will not be in the deep sea. Warm water is less dense so it will not go down in a body of water. Any currents that go down in the ocean are COLD currents, since they are more dense.

  32. Mike M says:

    So, assuming heat snuck down deep in the ocean to hide since ~2000, why should we not assume it did the same thing from ~1940 to ~1980? And because they say CO2 caused all the warming from ~1980 to ~2000 then all that heat is still down there and even more is being added to it right now! Yikes, it also must have happened from ~1870 to ~1910 so THAT’S down there as well!

    Ladies and gentlemen, it’s obvious that it might be really really hot ‘down there’ and I nominate Kevin Trenberth to go ‘down there’ and investigate.

    And if he doesn’t come back then we’ll know he was right all along!

  33. Aidan Donnelly says:

    ozspeaksup says: August 10, 2013 at 5:08 am

    Here in WA there is much anger and angst among those who bought solar panels, as the state Government has just passed the budget which includes dropping the ‘feed-in’ tariff from 0.40c Per Kw/hr to 0.20c – the supply price to the rest of us is .23c per kw/hr.

    Federal Election on the 7th Sept should dump the LoonyLabor govt of the incompetent and the Liberal party Leader (Tony Abbott) is on record that “The science behind the Co2 scare is crap’ and the election manifesto includes the repeal of the Carbon Tax immediately on taking office.

    One might say the clouds are still thick but rays of sunlight are beginning to poke through at last

    [For the rest of the world, WA is West Australia? 8<) Mod]

  34. lgl says:

    RockyRoad
    Some of it. Most of it was natural variability.

    Scarface
    700-2000m is not the bottom of the sea.

  35. DirkH says:

    Otter says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:32 am
    “I had been told by one of my detractors, where I post my skeptic articles, that skepticism is ‘a dying reactionary movement,’ ostensibly existing in the US and nowhere else.”

    Be assured that it exists in Germany. The state media will only portrait it as a few crazy crackpots. We are used to that; and there is no love lost between us and the state media; which we are forced to fund to the tune of 7 bn EUR a year; a lavish payment for lardass pro-EU apparatchiks.

    They have to smear so many different small movements these days their news turns into a hatefest every day.

  36. Mike M says:

    lgl says: August 10, 2013 at 3:50 am “The forcing has remained high but not increased the last decade.”

    This is new one to me. WHO is saying that the forcing has to keep increasing in order for temperature to keep increasing? Perhaps you are suggesting that we’re asymptotically approaching thermal equilibrium with the present forcing?

    If that is what you are suggesting then you are admitting that now at this moment (last 17 years) we have a thermally STABLE climate condition. Such thoroughly EXCLUDES the idea that ‘excess’ heat is hiding deep in the ocean. You cannot have it both ways…

  37. beng says:

    ***
    Scarface says:
    August 10, 2013 at 6:02 am

    @lgl

    Water with a temperature of 4C is the most dense.
    ***

    The ocean is saltwater, not distilled water.

  38. Bill Illis says:

    The Ocean is absorbing 0.5 W/m2/year right now (a measly 0.002C/year which is also within the error margin),

    … while global warming theory predicts ocean warming to currently be 1.2 W/m2/year,

    … while the surface/atmosphere is absorbing Zero W/m2/year in this current temperature standstill,

    … and the total net direct forcing is supposed to currently be 2.0 W/m2/year,

    … and the indirect feedback forcing like water vapor is supposed to be another 1.6 W/m2/year,

    … and increased emissions to space to be subtracted from these numbers is predicted to be 0.8 W/m2/year ,

    … for a total forcing which should be showing up of 2.8 W/m2/year.

    Simple math of the missing energy and the problems with the theory. Focus on a measly 0.5 W/m2/year ocean warming while it is only 40% of that predicted and 18% of the total forcing which is supposed to be showing up.

  39. The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
    The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.

  40. Gail Combs says:

    Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
    August 10, 2013 at 4:55 am

    I’m going to stick my neck out and say we should not be trying to counteract doomsday prophecies of global warming with equally unsupported predictions about ice ages (mini or otherwise)….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Alan they are not unsupported.

    The Holocene is at the half precession point and solar insolation is declining. If you look at the trend from the Holocene Optimum, summer solar energy in the Northern Hemisphere has dropped about 30 W/m2 graph and link. This blog article is backed up by this sentence in a peer-reviewed paper:

    ….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished….
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    Another blog article discusses another paper about Norway glaciers showing that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years.

    The key discussion that should be occurring is what happens as you approach the glacial inception threshold.

    ….The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again…..
    http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf

    …..Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

    ….the June 21 insolation minimum at 65N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence….
    http://lorraine-lisiecki.com/LisieckiRaymo2005.pdf

    And finally. As reported in Nature Geosciences, “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum,” Celia Martin-Puertas et al. took a meticulous look at annual sediment deposits in a German lake from 3,300 to 2,000 years ago. They analyzed the sediment layers—called varve—carefully measuring proxies for solar irradiance. This is what they found and their major conclusion:

    ….Here we analyse annually laminated sediments of Lake Meerfelder Maar, Germany, to derive variations in wind strength and the rate of 10Be accumulation, a proxy for solar activity, from 3,300 to 2,000 years before present. We find a sharp increase in windiness and cosmogenic 10Be deposition 2,759  ±  39 varve years before present and a reduction in both entities 199  ±  9 annual layers later. We infer that the atmospheric circulation reacted abruptly and in phase with the solar minimum. A shift in atmospheric circulation in response to changes in solar activity is broadly consistent with atmospheric circulation patterns in long-term climate model simulations, and in reanalysis data that assimilate observations from recent solar minima into a climate model. We conclude that changes in atmospheric circulation amplified the solar signal and caused abrupt climate change about 2,800 years ago…
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/abs/ngeo1460.html

    Long term it is going to get cooler but the ride is also going to be ‘Bumpier’ as we enter the lower solar insolation area that is near the ‘Switching Point’ between the two bistable climate regimes. (Hat tip to Dr. Brown @ Duke) Notice how there is a dispute as to whether we are headed towards glaciation or “a ‘double precession-cycle’ interglacial.” But no matter which thesis is correct, it is that ‘bumpy ride’ that climate instability near the ‘Switching Point’ that should concern us at this time.

    Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. Discusses this instability in the opening paragraph in the executive summary of “Abrupt Climate Change – Inevitable Surprises”, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, 2002, ISBN: 0-309-51284-0, 244 pages, Richard B. Alley, chair : http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347

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

    THIS is the area we should be focusing our money and attention. I really hope you are correct and this is just another tempest in a teapot but I fear not. Only additional REAL HONEST science will be able to tell us.

  41. faboutlaws says:

    Maybe the historians of the future will call the last few decades the Obama Warm Period. There’s otherwise little else to remember him for.

  42. Mike M says:

    Gail Combs says: August 10, 2013 at 8:01 am “Only additional REAL HONEST science will be able to tell us.”

    Correct but if we rely on government for the science of global cooling we will likely get the same response we are getting for global warming, people giving the answers they believe will best insure their jobs/grants into the future. More and more it seems that our government is the LAST entity we should be trusting for honest information. If not them then WHO?

  43. tarpon says:

    It all falls apart when actual science is applied. Falsified I think is the word to describe it. We need more real science.

  44. Gary Pearse says:

    Anthony, your handiwork, though unacknowledged in this report, is very much visible in this and the other CAGW “pauses” and turnarounds in the press. I found WUWT in 2007, searching to see if others like myself were counteracting this self immolation of civilization and freedom. In 2007, it was a bleak very worrisome picture with the Pied Piper(s) of Hamelin leading an innocent, unknowing throng of Kumbaya choresters to their destruction. Incredibly, 97% of the newspapers, TV, non-government organizations, funding sources and governments and 100% of the technical journals, universities and scientific institutions were marching in rhythm to the tune. Even as I write this, I have to pinch myself to believe this possible. It is like writing about the horrors of the Black Plague with the knowledge that this modern version was worse. I didn’t have much hope that we would wake up in time from this phantasmagoria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasmagoria.

    With some relief from the dark lunacy, I hope we can take away huge lessons concerning how easy it actually is to destroy what we believed to be essentially an indestructible bastion of freedom and progress that we had come to understand as the natural way of things. Now that we know it is a delicate thread and that the vast majority of people and their institutions are so easily subvertible by a determined, permanent, hateful legion of nihilists, can we now understand that we must be constantly on guard to do battle without quarter to maintain this delicate thread? Does the growing disillusionment, at least among thinkers, in the well-meaning majority lead to any sense that we must be more vigilant, more skeptical, more resistant in the face of grand claims that clearly serve elitist dreams of distopia? Can we better recognize the subphylum of misanthropic pipers whose deceitful ends are dressed up in compelling causes (saving the planet)? We should be able to, having seen these types and their methods many times before.

    Can we rehabilitate our universities and related institutions and journals, insisting on the highest standards of excellence and integrity. Can we change the things that inexorably lead to their corruption, the way they are funded, managed, their modus operandi?

    The other lesson has no question marks. I learned that as long as there are at least a few, honest, stalwart skeptics like Anthony Watts who can attract a nucleus of the like-minded who use logic, evidence (or lack thereof), honest scientific criticism to dissect agenda-driven “science” of those of dark purpose or their unwitting collaborators, the tide can be turned against enormous odds. My cynicism concerning the vast majority has considerably dissipated. Given the clear logic of counter arguments, the revelation of manipulation and subversion (climategate) the presentation of corruption and failures of the status quo and the evidence of their own senses, it seems almost everyone (and the press) is ultimately from Missouri.

  45. Scarface says:

    @beng

    That is true. I immediately started looking for the temperature at which salt water is the most dense. I couldn’t find it, but this made me feel pretty sure that cold salt water will be at the bottom of the ocean:
    _____
    Density of Ocean Water

    The density of pure water is 1000 kg/m3. Ocean water is more dense because of the salt in it. Density of ocean water at the sea surface is about 1027 kg/m3.
    There are two main factors that make ocean water more or less dense than about 1027 kg/m3: the temperature of the water and the salinity of the water. Ocean water gets more dense as temperature goes down. So, the colder the water, the more dense it is. Increasing salinity also increases the density of sea water.

    Less dense water floats on top of more dense water. Given two layers of water with the same salinity, the warmer water will float on top of the colder water. There is one catch though! Temperature has a greater effect on the density of water than salinity does. So a layer of water with higher salinity can actual float on top of water with lower salinity if the layer with higher salinity is quite a bit warmer than the lower salinity layer.

    The temperature of the ocean decreases and decreases as you go to the bottom of the ocean. So, the density of ocean water increases and increases as you go to the bottom of the ocean. The deep ocean is layered with the densest water on bottom and the lightest water on top. Circulation in the depths of the ocean is horizontal. That is, water moves along the layers with the same density.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html
    _____

    So, ocean water gets more dense as temperature goes down and the temperature of the ocean decreases and decreases as you go to the bottom of the ocean. I still think that there will be no missing heat hiding at the bottom of the ocean. Agree?

  46. Allan MacRae says:

    We predicted most of this debacle more than a decade ago. See below, note especially points 1, 8 and 9.

    Regards, Allan

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1079770

    [excerpts]

    We predicted global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article written in 2002. I think there is a reasonable probability that this cooling will be severe enough to affect the grain harvest. Urgent study of this question is appropriate, but the climate science community is so contaminated by warmist hysteria that it is apparently incapable of objective analysis.

    A full Ice Age is not required to hurt the developed world. More moderate global cooling could suffice.

    Modern Western society is complex, so moderate global cooling, together with a crippling of our food and energy systems through green-energy nonsense, could have devastating effects. (Add a collapse of major global currencies due to excessive money-printing by central banks in the UK, Europe, the USA and Japan.)

    Is this just more alarmist nonsense? Perhaps, but we have a strong predictive track record, unlike the warmists who have none.

    __________________

    Here are some background notes:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/ar5-climate-forecasts-what-to-believe/#comment-1064602

    [excerpts]

    Prediction Number 9
    In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result.
    This possibility (probability) concerns me.

    8 Successful Predictions from 2002 (these all happened in those European countries that fully embraced global warming mania):

    See article at
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.

    1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.

    2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.

    3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.

    4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.

    5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.

    6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.

    7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.

    8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.

    [end of excerpts]
    ______

  47. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am

    The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
    The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.
    ……………..
    How could that be if the TSI is responsible for only 0.1 C pp?
    Or alternatively, is there another unknown solar ‘agent’ effective at work here?
    Isn’t science advanced enough to discover its complicity?
    Or alternatively, the ‘agent’ is well known to the well informed, but it would be against the interest of the climate establishment to revel its identity and its modus operandy?

  48. Gail Combs says:

    Bill Illis says: @ August 10, 2013 at 7:46 am

    The Ocean is absorbing….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Take a look at John Kehr’s analysis of the Trenberth Energy Cartoon. The Earth’s Energy Balance: Simple Overview and The Difference between “Forcing” and Heat Transfer

  49. Gail Combs says:

    Mike M says: @ August 10, 2013 at 8:17 am

    Correct but if we rely on government for the science of global cooling we will likely get the same response we are getting for global warming, people giving the answers they believe will best insure their jobs/grants into the future. More and more it seems that our government is the LAST entity we should be trusting for honest information. If not them then WHO?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A lottery for grants?

    Some one mentioned using an ancient method of ‘Democracy’ where random people off the street were added to the legislature to prevent the ‘Capture’ by the moneyed elite.

    Unfortunately the moneyed elite seem to be able to capture anything and everything from activists to governments.

  50. lgl says:

    Mike M
    “WHO is saying that the forcing has to keep increasing in order for temperature to keep increasing?”
    Not me
    “Perhaps you are suggesting that we’re asymptotically approaching thermal equilibrium with the present forcing?”
    Yes
    “If that is what you are suggesting then you are admitting that now at this moment (last 17 years) we have a thermally STABLE climate condition.”
    No, not if you include the ocean.
    “Such thoroughly EXCLUDES the idea that ‘excess’ heat is hiding deep in the ocean.”
    No, not if ‘hiding’ means kept away from the suface and atmosphere.

  51. John says:

    I don’t think we are heading for another Little Ice Age. If that were true, CO2 and methane and black carbon would have to have very little effect.

    I agree that the IPCC has overestimated climate sensitivity — I’ve thought that for quite a while, just following temperature trends — and now we have a number of peer reviewed article suggesting that the IPCC was on the high side.

    But just because I think that we aren’t going to warm as much as the IPCC thinks, doesn’t mean that all of a sudden, CO2 and such won’t cause any warming.

    The LIA was about 1.5 degrees C cooler than today, worldwide average; let’s say that about 0.5 degrees of that is due to human influences of all kinds, the other 1 degree due to solar.

    Suppose we double CO2 and equivalents, and that produces (everything else equal) only 2 degrees C warming, which is around where the new climate sensitively calculations coalesce. Now suppose we also go back to the Little Ice Age due to 70 years of a cooler sun (they couldn’t find sunspots for 70 years, during the Maunder Minimum). Subtract one degree C (cooling) from 2 degrees C (warming, from doubling CO2 and equivalents) and you get one degree warmer than today around 2070. More CO2, more plant growth, and a slightly warmer world.

    No Little Ice Age, but reduced warming and lots of food.

  52. vukcevic says:
    August 10, 2013 at 8:33 am
    “The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age…
    The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.”
    How could that be if the TSI is responsible for only 0.1 C pp?

    I didn’t say I agreed with the article. And furthermore TSI has not gone down. The only instrument with good long-term stability [TIM/SORCE] which began operation in 2003 show that TSI now is the highest ever measured by that sensor.

  53. HenryP says:

    leif says
    The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.

    henry@leif & vukcevic
    i don’t think we are heading for an ice age
    my results suggest we are simply heading back to where we were in 1950.
    I was born in 1956
    so I am sure there is not that much to worry about
    except for the droughts on the Great Plains of US/Canada
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386130

  54. richardscourtney says:

    lgl:

    In your post at August 10, 2013 at 8:57 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386279
    you say to Mike M

    If that is what you are suggesting then you are admitting that now at this moment (last 17 years) we have a thermally STABLE climate condition.

    No, not if you include the ocean.

    Such thoroughly EXCLUDES the idea that ‘excess’ heat is hiding deep in the ocean.

    No, not if ‘hiding’ means kept away from the suface and atmosphere.

    True, but your hypothesis refutes the possibility of AGW being sufficiently large to be discernible.

    The heat “kept away from the suface (sic) and atmosphere” cannot warm the surface and atmosphere.

    Return of that heat to the surface and atmosphere would be at such a slow rate as to be imperceptible because of the difference between the thermal capacities of water and air.

    So, you are arguing that AGW cannot be a problem. No?

    Richard

  55. Gail Combs says:

    Scarface says: @ August 10, 2013 at 8:30 am

    …. Density of Ocean Water…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yo also have the effect of freezing and evaporation on ocean water. The icebergs are relatively fresh water while the remaining water becomes more salty.

    ….As sea water evaporates the salt remains behind, only the freshwater is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere, hence a region of excess evaporation, such as the subtropics (Fig. 14) tend to become salty (Fig. 15), while the areas of excess rainfall become fresher. The tropical belt, or Intra-tropical Convergence Zone is such an area. Ocean circulation acts to move lower salinity seawater into evaporative regions, and more saline water into humid regions, this is part of the hydrological cycle.

    The relative freshness of the Pacific Ocean surface water contrasted sharply with the surface salinity of the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 15). Excess evaporation of the Atlantic and excess precipitation of the Pacific are balanced to some measure by an atmospheric flux of water vapor over Central America, amounting to 0.35 Sv. The Arctic Sea is very fresh, due to the enormous amount of river water that drains into it from the northern continents.

    In the polar regions seawater freezes (Fig. 16). Southern ocean ice exhibits lots of seasonal variability, and is generally only 0.5 meters thick. Arctic sea ice is thicker, ranging from 2 to 3 meters. The sea ice contains only part of the seawater salt, about 0.5% (5 ppt), hence ice formation like evaporation, concentrates salt in the remaining body of seawater. This causes very dense water (cold), which in some regions in the Southern Ocean leads to deep reaching convection forming a water mass that spreads along the sea floor well into the northern hemisphere. This water mass is called Antarctic Bottom Water (see below). The very low salinity of the Arctic prohibits the development of deep reaching convection in the Arctic Sea…..
    http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_strat.html

    You can then add in Drakes Passage which has been modeled and Bob Tisdale on ENSO.

    From what I can tell the constriction through Drakes Passage sends some of the Antarctic cold water up along the coast of South America. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is driven by wind and therefore the strength of those winds may have something to do with the formation of El Nino/La Nina. (SWAG)

    …The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is the most important current in the Southern Ocean, and the only current that flows completely around the globe. The ACC, as it encircles the Antarctic continent, flows eastward through the southern portions of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans….

    The Antarctic Circumpolar Current’s eastward flow is driven by strong westerly winds. The average wind speed between 40°S and 60°S is 15 to 24 knots with strongest winds typically between 45°S and 55°S. Historically, the ACC has been referred to as the ‘West Wind Drift’ because the prevailing westerly wind and current are both eastward.

    Without the aid of continental reference point, except for the Drake Passage, where by convention, all flow through the Passage is the ACC, the current’s boundaries are generally defined by zonal variations in specific water properties of the Southern Ocean (Gordon et al., 1977). Variations in these properties have been used to classify regions whose edges are defined by fronts, where there is rapid changes in water properties which occur over a short distance. North of the ACC is the Subtropical Convergence or Subtropical Front (STF), usually found between 35°S and 45°S, where the average Sea Surface Temperature (SST) changes from about 12°C to 7 to 8°C and salinity decreases from greater than 34.9 to 34.6 or less…..
    The southern boundary of the ACC is approximately at 65°S in most of the Indian and Pacific Ocean, from 50°E to the dateline; moves northward to 60°S, east of the dateline to 140°W; is near 70°S by 120°W and moves northward to 60°S, east of the Drake Passage; and northward to 55°S at 10°E. Northward displacement of the southern boundary of the ACC are in the areas of gyres with clockwise surface circulation in the Weddell Sea and in the Ross Sea.

    Strong, nearly zonal, westerly winds force a large, near-surface, northward Ekman transport and a northward pressure gradient. The ACC current is in approximately geostrophic equilibrium, so that inclined layers of constant density slope towards the surface poleward across the ACC to balance the current’s northward sea surface height elevation. The alignment between the prevailing winds and the resulting geostrophic current intensifies the ACC. Because stronger gradients give rise to stronger flow, the majority of the ACC transport is associated with the fronts within the current….
    http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/southern/antarctic-cp.html

    Last you can add in ozone.

    …Scientists have linked the ozone hole that forms each Antarctic spring high above Earth to changes in the fierce band of westerly winds that swirls around Antarctica. Those winds, closer to the continent’s surface, have grown stronger and moved poleward over the past several decades. And now a new study suggests that the ozone hole has an even broader reach. It finds evidence those shifting winds are speeding circulation patterns in polar waters….

    “The models were indicating there could be some change in ocean circulation (caused by ozone depletion), but there was a lot of debate about whether what the models were saying was actually happening,” said lead author Darryn Waugh, a climate scientist at Johns Hopkins University.

    His research, published Thursday in the journal Science, bears those models out. It was published alongside a separate study, from researchers at Pennsylvania State University, that affirms the ozone hole has been the main driver of the changes in Antarctica’s winds, dwarfing the role played by climate change…..
    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ozone-holes-shifting-winds-may-be-sapping-major-carbon-sink-15530

    And the last link is the changes in the amount of solar UV and E-UV wave lengths as well as the solar winds changing the Cosmic Ray flux.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Ozone/ozone_2.php

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/ozone-depletion-trumps-greenhouse-gas-increase-in-jet-stream-shift/

  56. CRS, DrPH says:

    From the article:

    The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”

    Anthony, now would be a great time for Josh to send a montage of caricatures of Mann etc. to this Danish paper! I bet they would publish this on the heels of this article!

  57. Erik Christensen says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    “The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.”
    ————————
    Correct Sir, “kan” translate to “can” as in Obama’s “Yes we Can” as in “if You put your mind to it”
    “I CAN make a comment on WUWT, but My arguments MAY fail”

  58. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says: @ August 10, 2013 at 9:27 am

    …I was born in 1956, so I am sure there is not that much to worry about…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    I was walking home from the bus stop in 1956 and got frost bite (and almost died from hypothermia) This was south of Syracuse NY BTW. 1956 does not bring back good memories. Lots of snow – the dog would climb up and sit on the garage roof – and DARN COLD.

  59. lgl says:

    Richard
    Of course AGW can be a problem, but I don’t think it will. We will have time to react.

  60. RC Saumarez says:

    @RockyRoad
    “And once the Warmista meme has been dismantled, it won’t be long before insane policies pushed by the EU and other countries will be dismantled also. I predict that soon we’ll start to see such news items in newspapers across the globe, which will forever destroy the “Climate by CO2″ fiction.”

    I wish I shared your confidence in the EU. Remember that it is not a democracy.

  61. HenryP says:

    @Gail

    I did not say it is going to be a tea party, as the world cools down,
    I emigrated from Holland to South Africa
    Here, we don’t have the kind of cold that you describe, but , unfortunately, yes,
    my father still remembers how cold it was in those days.
    True, the planets & what not, are moving back in their place,.
    As you and I know, adding more CO2 will not help… (LOL)
    but I do hate the cold.
    Most recently I have a dream of even going further north (into Africa) and start making tea…

  62. richardscourtney says:

    lgl:

    At August 10, 2013 at 9:57 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386331
    you say to me

    Of course AGW can be a problem

    Really? How?
    Please explain in the light of my answer to your hypothesis in the post you purport to be answering.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386305

    Assertion is not evidence or argument (unless, if course, you are an Al Gore acolyte).

    Richard

  63. dp says:

    The Danes are probably concerned the first real climate refugees will be their neighbors to the north and east. Check your maps. That would represent a lot of fellow EU citizens looking for a warm place to hang their hat and some sweet pastries. It would not be the first time the Swedes came to town to kick the snow off their boots (Scanian war). The LIA was especially hard on the Fins and Estonians as well, and surely they will not sit quietly by and freeze to death this time.

    The LIA was the last important glacier building period, too, and we can expect a repeat of that should LIA II come to pass, and quaint alpine villages will surely be crushed under glaciers thought to be in their death throes in a more naive time. The very expensive glass houses at Mauna Kea and Haleakala in Hawaii would also be at risk. Hawaii once had glaciers, too.

    Time will tell, but it is certainly true that climate change is the greatest threat we face. Depending on what the climate changes to. It may be a good time to duffel up the seed cache at Svalbard and move it to a safer place.

  64. But, but, but… how can it get colder when “no uncertainties are known” to keep it from getting hotter? /sarc.

    Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

    Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. ….

    While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential.

    From the AGU committee statement, Aug. 5, 2013, (not ratified by the AGU membership)
    Affirming: Amy Clement, John Farrington, Susan Joy Hassol, Robert Hirsch, Peter Huybers, Peter Lemke, Gerald North, Michael Oppenheimer, Ben Santer, Gavin Schmidt, Leonard A. Smith, Eric Sundquist, Pieter Tans.
    Dissenting: Roger Pielke Sr

    PS. Thanks for the PREVIEW button!!!

  65. Martin A says:

    Kelvin Vaughan says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:25 am

    CO2 is innocent – release CO2. Witnesses were lying!

    And, furthermore, it was convicted in a kangaroo court, with neither witnesses nor lawyers for the defence.

  66. lgl says:

    Richard
    Can does not need evidence. One argument could be that rising sea level can be a problem, but I think it will happen to slowly to become a serious problem, and a colder planet is a bigger problem than a warmer planet…

  67. HenryP says:

    Stephen Rasey says (or supports the statement)
    While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential

    Henry says
    Indeed, climate change is happening!!
    it is just us not us that is causing it…
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
    Do we agree on that?

  68. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:25 am
    The only instrument with good long-term stability [TIM/SORCE] which began operation in 2003 show that TSI now is the highest ever measured by that sensor.

    to make it clear: I personally take it that your estimates of 0.1C and the above TSI statement are correct and I have no knowledge or reason to doubt it.
    That said, if the TSI was only natural variable it would be expected that GT now would be at its highest since 2003, but that appears not to be the case.
    Most of us consider that ultimate source of natural variability eventually comes from the solar output.
    If that is so, another variable input must have declined to compensate for the rise in the TSI.
    Here I compare two instrumental sets of data describing solar output as they impact the Earth since 2003, the TSI and the geomagnetic Ap Index.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-Ap.htm
    It can be observed that small rise in the TSI has been accompanied by fall in the geomagnetic Ap index.
    It is also worth noting that the solar flairs and CMEs (as represented by Ap) are accompanied by fall in the TSI (this is not what I would expect), any explanation?

  69. BTW, southern Summit County, Colorado (near Breckenridge) had mid day snowfall down to 13000 ft on Aug. 7. 2013
    http://i44.tinypic.com/25koqz9.jpg
    Subject: Pacific Peak, Crystal Peak, Peak 10 (Left to Right) Aug 7, 2013.
    The snow didn’t last 24 hrs. I can’t prove snow this early is unusual,
    but here is a link from Rocky Mtn News Aug 13, 2008
    And this: “Snow in August, You Betcha!” from Aug 17, 2008.

  70. richardscourtney says:

    lgl:

    At August 10, 2013 at 11:11 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386396
    in response to my asking you for argument or evidence to support your contention that “AGW can be a problem” despite my assessment that your hypothesis denies the possibility of AGW
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1386305
    you have replied saying

    Can does not need evidence.

    OK. I say I CAN obtain moonrock by jumping to the Moon.
    How much will you pay me for this lump of moonrock?

    Richard

  71. goldminor says:

    Something that should be considered with the possible advent of a grand minimum is that growing seasons in many northern areas could be severely affected. This would be dependent, of course, on the severity of the temperature decline. In this regard, here is where forward looking government policy should focus their efforts. This would be an appropriate form of government decision making, to enable the proper agencies to come up with a battle plan. Being proactive in this respect would make all the difference in maintaining an orderly future for everyone.

    This could be the real-deal crisis. If it is, then we are not talking about 20 or 50 years from now as in the phony AGW premise. Food shortages could arise within 5 years. The global emergency food supply is at the lowest level ever kept, so even if the cooling did not reach dangerous levels there would be no harm in increasing storage of basic goods and making sure that the cupboard is sufficiently stocked. We blithely live day to day, believing that store shelves will never run out. The majority of us in the western world would never even consider the possibility of food shortages.

  72. vukcevic says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:24 am
    Most of us consider that ultimate source of natural variability eventually comes from the solar output.
    That is where we differ. The sun has not varied enough over the time of interest [that goes for any and all solar indices], so there is no good evidence that solar output has had much [i.e. more than the 0.1C] to do with climate variation.

    It is also worth noting that the solar flares and CMEs (as represented by Ap) are accompanied by fall in the TSI (this is not what I would expect), any explanation?
    By only looking at a small piece of the data one often gets misled. One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.

  73. 1.August 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm
    2.
    Leif Svalgaard, is in a dream wolrd when it comes to what is currently taken place on the sun and the future climatic implications.

    3.
    Leif has no regard for past history which lends support that the sun is much more variable then what he keeps trying to convey and that the solar conditions during the MAUNDER MINIMUM were very weak(aa index near 0 ,solar wind 200km/sec) and how this correlated to the very cold conditions at that time. In addition he keeps trying to down play the significance of how very very weak solar cycle 24 is and will be going forward.

    4.
    This flip is nothing like a normal flip and I would not be surprised (as the prolonged solar minimum continues due to angular momentum exerted by the planets on the sun, which Leif also says is not correct) that this may be the last flip , or at the very least the future flips are going to be even less pronounced then even this one.

    5.
    Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.

    6.
    This cycle could be weaker then solar cycle 5, and is much weaker then solar cycle 14 . Layman sunspot counts and graphs which are correct show this clearly to be the case.

    7.
    The AP index and solar flux going forward will end this debate, and as of today we have solar flux around 105 at the maximum ! It should be north of 150.

    8.
    Also since Oct 2005 the AP index has been extremely low and I expect sub 5 will be the rule in the not to distant future, at least post 2015.

    9.
    Once the solar parameters hit the levels I have been saying (see below) I list the potential secondary effects which could take place as a result.

    10.
    1. solar flux sub 90 but better sub 72, less UV light less ozone more meridional atm. circulation ,more clouds,snow cover and precip.,higher albedo ,colder temp. N.H.

    11.
    2. precipitation patterns changing can impact the thermohaline circulation perhaps slowing it down if precip increases substancially and adds more fresh water to the system.

    12.
    3. solar wind sub 350 km/sec but better sub 300 km/sec, more cosmic rays more clouds ,higher albedo, colder temp. more geological activity especially in high latitudes.the geo magnetic field weakening of earth promoting this even more.

    13.
    4. solar irradiance off .015% less visible light ocean heat content subsides

    14.
    5. ap index 5 or lower with isolated spikes will cause the plates to be more unstable, more volcanic activity and earthquake activity. more shocks to the magnetosphere.

    15.
    6. low solar in addition to being correlated with an increase in major volcanic activity and earthquakes in and around the solar minimums also can be tied to a cold pdo/amo. a cold pdo translates to more la ninas versus el ninos the result global cooling.

    16.
    7. low solar actiivty having severe impacts to the Thermosphere and Ionopsphere.
    Thermosphere will contract and cool substancially during a prolonged solar minimum which will inter act with all the other layers of the atmosphere.

    17.
    This explanation is the ONLY explanation that can explain the many past abrupt climatic changes of the past both up and down. There are no other explanations from Milankovitch Cycles, to the Thermohaline circulation shutting down, to extra terrestrial impacts,to the sudden increases in greenhouse gases like methane or co2 etc etc.

    18.
    The explanation above shows how the climate could be brought to thresholds if the solar parameters change in degree of magnitude strong enough and for a period of duration long enough following a sufficient number of years of sub- solar activity in general, which no other explanation is able to show.

    19.
    Thresholds have to be met to flip the climate from one climatic regime to another. When the climate is in the same climatic regime changes are gradual and slow and always stay within particular boundaries.

    20.
    I am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.

    21.

    22.
    Leave a Reply

    Enter your comment here…

  74. @HenryP 11:22 am
    AGU: While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential.

    Indeed. Taken out of context, there are no uncertainties that could make the impacts of [a Little Ice Age II ] climate change inconsequential. Another Little Ice Age would be VERY consequential.

    But… that AGU sentence is taken very much out of context of “Global Warming”, “increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level”, “decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice.”, “human-caused increases in greenhouse gases”, “increased extremes of heat”, and are projected to increase. ….” discussed the the previous three paragraphs.

    I watch the pea under the thimble as the AGU switches from “global warming” to the less specific, “impacts of climate change” when talking about uncertainties. Are they fooling anyone?

  75. 1.Salvatore Del Prete says:
    2.
    August 10, 2013 at 10:35 am

    3.
    I looked over Henry’s thoughts . They are not that bad although I do have areas of disagreement, but don’t we all.

    4.
    The biggest area is his call for the temperature deceleration decline to begin to subside around years 2016-2019.

    5.
    If solar activity turns out to be as severe as many of us are anticipating the cooling should be INCREASING going forward as this decade proceeds.

    6.
    The biggest fault I have with many of the climatic outlooks is almost all of them fail to take into account possible thresholds that exist in our climatic systen(therefore none can address the abrupt climate changes of the past that have occurred on a regular basis) andmany of them are always trying to fit the climate into a neat regular rythmic cycle.

    7.
    It does not work that way due to the following:

    8.
    1. The beginning state of the climate has much to do with how the climate will change even if the same forcings are applied.

    9.
    2. The climatic system is non linear which means the same forcings can produce a completly different result.

    10.
    3. Even if one and two were not correct the location, the degree of magnitude of the forcings and the duration of time of the forcings and how many different forcings are phased into a cold regime or a warm regime at the same time would cause major differences in the evenual climatic outcome.

    11.
    That is why these percise climatic outlooks like Henry is trying to do are estimates.

    12.
    I can say with confidence that the temperature trends are going to be down at least until 2040 or so due to the very weak prolonged solar minimum and what past history has shown to be the climatic reaction to this type of an event.

    13.
    However I don’t know the degree of magnitude or duration of time, the prolonged solar minimum will be, how much of an impact the weakening geo magnetic field will have,don’t know exactly how much volcanic activity may or may not be taken place going forward or the location, cosmic ray increases and their effects on clouds, and UV light decline impacts on ozone, and how meridional the atmospheric circulation may become and how long it may be sustained, or how this this circulation pattern may, or may not effect the thernmohaline circulation.

    14.
    Let’s not forget a decline in solar visible light and how that will play upon ocean heat content going forward.

    15.
    Then if this were not bad enough you have thresholds which are out there, which might be reached or may not be reached.

    16.
    This is why( aside from co2 being a non climatic leader but rather a climatic result) the AGW model forecast are essentially uselss.

    17.
    Nevertheless, through past evidence and current studies on solar/climatic relationships I can confidently conclude that the temperature trend will be down due to the prolonged solar minimum which started in earnest in late 2005.

    18.
    My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years) for minor temp decline are as follows:

    19.
    solar flux sub 90

    20.
    solar wind sub 350 km/sec

    21.
    ap index 5-8

    22.
    solar irradiance off .1 %

    23.
    UV light off up to 25%

    24.
    My solar parameters(sustained following sub solar activity in general for several years,which started in year 2005) for major temperature declines and even possible thresholds to come about are as follows:

    25.
    solar flux sub 72 or lower

    26.
    solar wind sub 300 km/sec or lower

    27.
    ap index sub 5

    28.
    solar irradiance off .2% or more

    29.
    uv light emissions off upwards of 50%

    30.
    None of the above has happened since the solar Dalton Minimumon a sustained basis following many years of sub solar activity.
    This decade with the first prolonged solar minmium since the Dalton Minimum offers us an opportunity to see just how much or how little of an impact certain solar parameters will have on the climate in general.

    31.
    Again because of the reasons given earlier the exact impacts are impossible to quantify.

    32.

    33.
    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Enter your comment here…

  76. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:40 am
    I am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.
    Almost all of your points are unsubstantiated and wishful thinking and as such do not deserve serious consideration.

  77. Leif there is very good evidence that solar variations and climatic responses correlate.

    Your insistence to this not be the case is absurd.

  78. HenryP says:

    Henry@MA Vukcevik
    I wonder if you are aware of the fact that a “quiet” sun is not a “cooler” sun
    even though a quiet sun does seem to bring (global) cooling to earth
    ??

  79. Robert in Calgary says:

    For Otter @ 2:32am

    Otter, tell your detractor if he has the courage of his convictions, he can come here and “educate” us. We’ll see if he can do any better than Jai Mitchell.

  80. TSI does not run counter to the AP index, once very prolonged solar minimum conditions are established. Example would be the recent solar irradiance decline of -.015% while the ap index was in the tank.

    Leif your not going to get away with your false statements when it comes to solar/climatic relationships.

    You have no clue.

  81. Dan Pangburn says:

    Many (if not all) really missed the boat when they looked at TSI, didn’t see any effect and ruled sunspots out as a factor. If they had thought of conservation of energy and looked at the sunspot time-integral they might have discovered what actually drives the average global temperature. Change to the level of non-condensing ghg has no significant effect.

    One corroborating study is described at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html . This shows a trajectory based on the sunspot number time-integral beginning in 1610. The decline of the LIA and rapid rise since approximately 1941 are evident.

    After about 1895, accurate temperature measurements were made world wide and revealed the oscillations above and below the sunspot-number-time-integral-trajectory. The oscillations are caused by the net effect of ocean cycles (which are dominated by the PDO). The resulting graph and physics-based equation that accurately (R2=0.9) calculates the measured anomaly trend are shown at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html

    Several other informative links are in the References at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/

  82. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:47 am
    Leif there is very good evidence that solar variations and climatic responses correlate.
    When you look beyond wishful thinking the ‘evidence’ fades away. For example, the widely touted cosmic ray – cloud – climate correlation does not hold up: http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-Cosmic-Rays-Climate.pdf “it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds”.

  83. I stand corrected on my previous post, you were repyling to someone else that thought tsi and the ap index ran counter.

  84. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:54 am
    I stand corrected on my previous post
    I’m happy to participate in your continued education, although from other threads it seems you are a slow learner. But I have great experience with people suffering from that disorder.

  85. HenryP says:

    @Stephen Rasey
    as stated before I think we will not be moving towards a LIA
    we are simply moving back to where we were in 1950
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    we will have to adapt?

  86. goldminor says:

    Robin Hewitt says:
    August 10, 2013 at 3:20 am

    But if the sun is causing a little ice age, that could be used to explain the current lack of warming. The Warmistas can argue that the CO2 warming is there as predicted but masked out by the change in solar activity.
    ———————-
    Late last year after posting a thought multiple times about the possibility of a grand minimum one warmist stated that they had already thought of that, and the expected cooling would be no more than 0.3C. To which I answered that ‘I had never heard any of the warmists talking about a grand minimum and that some even seemed to think that they weren’t real or at the least predictable’. I further asked him how they could forecast such a number from a phenomenon that they didn’t even believe in. He had no answer for that question.

  87. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:38 am
    One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.

    It looks as you could be wrong, this graph
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-Ap-n.htm
    shows that the evidence is overwhelming
    It is worth remembering that not all CMEs hit the Earth’s magnetosphere.
    On the other hand it is correct to say that longer term smoothed Ap would follow to some extent smoothed TSI, which may lead to a conclusion that the Ap is made of two variables. I leave that to your ‘scientific curiosity instinct’ to ponder, since my knowledge isn’t up to resolving the issue.

  88. vukcevic says:
    August 10, 2013 at 12:04 pm
    “One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.”
    It looks as you could be wrong, this graph…

    Shows that Ap and TSI vary together. It is just that the relationship is a bit more complicated than you think. Very large sunspots darken the solar surface and generate the sharp down-spikes in TSI and also results in CMEs that if hitting the Earth results in up-spikes of Ap [a very close relationship]. But these are rare and the day-to-day variation over the solar cycle shows a different relationship: the usual solar cycle variation of TSI and Ap in a positive correlation. This has been known for decades and now you know it too.

  89. Leif it does not hold up because the degree of magnitude and duration of time of ALL the solar activity/variations since the Dalton Solar Minimum has not been pronounced enough. The sun has featured a more or less steady 11 year sunspot rhymic cycle since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended and any solar effects with the sun behaving in this manner are going to be compensated for by climatic random changes happening here on earth such as volcanic activity, enso, the pdo /amo phase etc etc. Earth climatic random changes will mask any solar effects, when weak because the sun has to reach a certain degree of magnitude change /duration of time in order to exert an influence on earthly climatic random changes. You don’t understand this.
    I have long held the view that solar activity since the end of the Dalton accomplished one thing bringing the climate from Dalton conditions to post Dalton conditions, and nothing more since, the sun displayed a pattern of high activity which featured a steady 11 year sunspot cycle with lulls and peaks all of which will accomplished NOTHING when it comes to the sun having a major impact on the climate.

    You need EXTREME solar changes, and duration of time has to be sufficiently long, otherwise the inherent negative feedbacks in the earth climatic system are going to overwhelm small solar effects.

    That is what you do not understand.

    However the present prolonged solar minimum I think will have the extreme solar changes and duration of time necessary to bring about climatic change this time, following enough sub solar years of activity..

  90. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 12:15 pm
    However the present prolonged solar minimum I think will have the extreme solar changes
    That is your problem: ‘you think‘ but you have no evidence that there is any validity to your wishful thinking. Perhaps believe would be a better rendition of your affliction. ‘Thinking’ may be too presumptuous.

  91. Leif that is why so many of the correlations you look for don’t really hold up or if they do hold up for a while they don’t stand the test of time. I think I am right ,think about it.

    My opinion of your knowlege Leif is high even though I disagree with you on solar /climatic relationships. Still you know your astronomy that is for sure, but the climate part I think is where you are weak. Just my opinion..

  92. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 12:22 pm
    the climate part I think is where you are weak. Just my opinion..
    and your ‘expertise” in matters of climate comes from where? is based on what?

  93. taxed says:

    With a Polar jet swinging from the north and the south,then we can expect a very changeable climate. With large swings between hot/cold and wet/dry rather then a large amount of cooling.
    The big chill starts when a “ice age pattern” starts to form over a number of years.
    Where there is a southern tracking Polar jet that goes zonal over a large area of the NH and a lot of weather activity over the poles. This set up allows large broad areas of high pressure to form a band around the Arctic circle. Which in winter would cause bitter cold weather over large areas of the NH.

  94. vukcevic says:

    Vukcevic:
    It is also worth noting that the solar flairs and CMEs (as represented by Ap) are accompanied by fall in the TSI

    Svalgaard:
    One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.

    Vukcevic:
    this graph http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-Ap-n.htm
    shows that the evidence is overwhelming

    Svalgaard:
    Very large sunspots darken the solar surface and generate the sharp down-spikes in TSI and also results in CMEs that if hitting the Earth results in up-spikes of Ap [a very close relationship]. …now you know it…..

    Vukcevic:
    Now we both know it

  95. I can go with believe in contrast to think. In my earlier post I wish you would read the one I sent at 11:44am and read points 8 through 13, and then you might see my angle in all of this,and why I say what I say to you when it comes to solar/climate relationships.

    If it is not extreme changes on the sun, what else is it?. What other mechinisim changes back and forth enough times and in a period of time short enough to explain all the the abrupt climatic changes on earth other then the sun?

    There is nothing else for other things take to long, are one time events, or only work on a regional basis
    I can’t think of any climatic events originating on the earth that would flip back and forth in a degree of magnitude strong enough and often enough to cause all the abrupt past climatic changes here on earth.

    It has to be an extra terrestrial source,that source being the sun. The sun is the engine that drives the atmospheric/oceanic circulations therefore any changes if significant enough(on the sun) must affect those circulations in my opinion.

  96. dp says:

    Robin Hewitt says:
    August 10, 2013 at 3:20 am

    But if the sun is causing a little ice age, that could be used to explain the current lack of warming. The Warmistas can argue that the CO2 warming is there as predicted but masked out by the change in solar activity.

    And they would be right. An increase in CO2 causes heat retention in the atmosphere. That isn’t debated – it is what happens next that is hotly (PTP) debated. Nobody knows what effect CO2 warming has on the climate because nobody has a clear idea what the feedbacks are. Maybe it causes a LIA event or a pleasant warming that is beneficial to Canadian farmers – we don’t know. What we know with a great deal of certainty is that it does not do what they (the climate hysteria advocates) say it does.

  97. Leif I must rather converse with someone that does not agree with me, [than] does. I like it even though it is frustrating.

  98. I do the weather for a living. Also did it in the military, studied it in college.

  99. HenryP says:

    SdP/Leif says
    3.
    I looked over Henry’s thoughts . They are not that bad although I do have areas of disagreement, but don’t we all.

    4.
    The biggest area is his call for the temperature deceleration decline to begin to subside around years 2016-2019.

    5.
    If solar activity turns out to be as severe as many of us are anticipating the cooling should be INCREASING going forward as this decade proceeds.

    henry says
    thx for agreeing (NOT THAT BAD)

    Note that I said that …cooling started in 1995 (maxima= energy-in), even though global cooling did not start until at least 3 or 4 years later (means=energy out)
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

    the best fit for the drop in the speed of maximum temps. is
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    anything else would show up much larger global cooling….

    clearly there is a lag between max’s and means

    OTOH I sort of also expect a “warped” decline of my sine wave
    as each quarter portion of the wave of (average) 22 years (=2 solar cycles)
    seems to vary by a no. of years

    You could help me by telling me what the no. of years from 1995 for the next quarter will be…

  100. goldminor says:

    DirkH says:
    August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am
    They have to smear so many different small movements these days their news turns into a hatefest every day.
    —————-
    Msnbc has a regular group that harass others who disagree or dare to bring up another opinion. Their political page comment section is ridiculous to read or interact in.

  101. I agree two solar cycles is 22 years. The big questions are how weak will the next 22 years be, and how weak do they have to be to have a big impact on the climate?
    I hope we can find out one way or the other.I rather be wrong then not know.

  102. davidmhoffer says:

    Salvatore Del Prete;
    I can’t think of any climatic events originating on the earth that would flip back and forth in a degree of magnitude strong enough and often enough to cause all the abrupt past climatic changes here on earth.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Neither can I. Therefore it must be the sun. Or the moon. Or Jupiter. Or cosmic rays. Or the earth’s magnetic field….

    Not being able to think of another reason in no way supports the reason you assert.

  103. Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    I do the weather for a living. Also did it in the military, studied it in college.
    Although weather is not climate, one might argue that average weather is climate. Back in the 1970s, research into Sun/Weather/Climate [SWC] was effectively dead as the various correlations people have been claiming ever since solar activity was first linked to weather/climate [in 1659] has all failed with the passage of time. Then in the early 1970s colleagues [among them Walter Orr Reoberts - Founder of NCAR - National Center for Atmospheric Research http://ncar.ucar.edu/ ] and I revived the entire field and for about a decade SWC was considered a valid research field, until the correlations we had uncovered also failed. The effort back then is aptly summarized in this NASA Special Publication #426 http://www.leif.org/EOS/Sun-Weather-Climate.pdf The text says: ” We are especially indebted to Dr. Ray Wexler, Dr. John M. Wilcox, Dr. S.J. Bauser, and Dr. Leif Svalgaard for reading several complete draft and revisions” so apparently my peers at the time did value my expertise, so your silly claim that I ‘have no clue’ seems misplaced. You may read section 2.5 about my work on the solar sector structure and its possible effect on atmospheric circulation. And section 4.2.3 about our breakthrough [as it was described at the time] work on solar sector influence on atmosphere vorticity and low-pressure systems. Elaborated more in section 4.3.
    The whole book deserves to be read. If you do, you will find that there has been no progress in the field since the book was published in 1977. Correlations that were heralded as secure has fallen by the wayside, and the field had once again fallen into disrepute, where it lingers to this day
    Finally in 1976, the Nixon Administration sent me as a special US-envoy with expertise in this field to the USSR [the Soviet Union]. to report on progress in the US on SWC and to hear about what work was done in the USSR.

  104. vukcevic says:
    August 10, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    Now we both know it
    I [and any scientist in the field] have known this for decades. And the explanation [that I gave you] is simple, well-known, and straightforward.

  105. Bruce Cobb says:

    Leif’s apparent belief that climate is random and/or driven by things like volcanoes is simply wishful thinking on his part. His modus operandi as always is the old river-in-Egypt tactic, and heaping helpings of abuse.

  106. M Courtney says:

    If you do, you will find that there has been no progress in the field since the book was published in 1977.

    A sure sign of pseudoscience is that it doesn’t progress.
    And in most fields I would say that no progress in over 30yrs is a sure sign of pseudoscience.
    But not in this particular case as… how much new data would you expect in a half century? The Sun and the climate are stable and yet noisy enough that this time period isn’t definitive.

    Personally, I agree that this “Sun causes Ice-Age” nonsense is unjustified.
    But so is the disproof.

    Let us wait for Game of Thrones to become uncool and see then how many people think “Winter is coming”.

  107. Bruce Cobb says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm
    Leif’s apparent belief that climate is random and/or driven by things like volcanoes is simply wishful thinking on his part. His modus operandi as always is the old river-in-Egypt tactic, and heaping helpings of abuse.
    Abuse goes where abuse is due, like in your case. You regularly surface with nonsense like this and deserve no better. Attack the science, not the man to avoid being paid back in kind.

  108. Green Jungle says:

    As a Dane i know how well censored Jyllandsposten is just pretending to be pro freedom of expression. That they have cherry picked this issue is however a sensation as the general population in Denmark does not know that there is an alternative to the AGW fairytale spoon feed to them by a psychotic Minister of Climate. Just ponder over that title.

  109. kim says:

    Leif, can you tell me what is the flaw in Soon & Legates 2012 paper in JASTP or is there a possible mechanism in there? The proposed mechanism seems capable of amplifying and being damped.
    =============

  110. M Courtney says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm
    how much new data would you expect in a half century? The Sun and the climate are stable and yet noisy enough that this time period isn’t definitive.
    If we assume that the signal is there just below the noise [the error bar is equal to the noise], then to cut the error bar in half [so the signal becomes acceptable] we need four times as much data, i.e. two centuries. So, come back then and we can continue the discussion :-)

  111. kim says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:01 pm
    Leif, can you tell me what is the flaw in Soon & Legates 2012 paper in JASTP or is there a possible mechanism in there?
    Provide me a [non-paywalled] link to the article to spare me the trouble of hunting for it.

  112. M Courtney says:

    Thank you Leif.
    Exactly my point.
    We don’t know enough to reject the solar-climate hypothesis,

    But we certainly don’t have enough evidence to endorse it. The null hypothesis is that there is no such effect.

    The solar-climate hypothesis isn’t junk science. Supporters and curious researchers don’t deserve scorn.
    But the solar-climate hypothesis isn’t anything more than an unproven idea… and won’t be until about 2200AD, at least.
    Believers do deserve scorn (or pity).

  113. kim says:

    All I have is the abstract. I was sure you’d read it, as it might be the Holy Grail.
    ===================

  114. kim says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    All I have is the abstract. I was sure you’d read it, as it might be the Holy Grail.
    I think they use the outmoded Hoyt&Schatten TSI series [Soon has used that one recently see http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png ] which does not represent what most researchers today think TSI was doing. Therefore there is no ‘empirical relationship’ to discuss.

  115. William McClenney says:

    Obviously there are many fascinating scientific and political issues here. But to me the truly fascinating thing about all of this is how myopic it might turn out to be. Yes, the conditions would seem just about right for a little ice age to be just ahead. That is just about as far as anyone myopically takes this.

    So my question is simply this, why “little ice age?”

    It is difficult to imagine a worse time for a “little” ice age to occur. As of 2013 the Holocene is precisely 11,716 years old (based on the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval, essentially a little ice age).

    We are at the 23,000 year end of the precession cycle, which makes 11,500 half. Starting to get the picture here?

    If one were looking for a climate “tipping point” one need look no further than the major ocean cycles switching to their negative modes, the sun swooning into a low-funk in solar cycle 24 and predicted to go much quieter in solar cycle 25 and perhaps beyond.

    So the question really should be asked “Why not a Big Ice Age (BIA)?”

    Could a little ice age (LIA) occurring at a half-precession old end extreme interglacial tip us into the next Big one?

    So be ever thoughtful of both facts and predictions before leaping to a conclusion. It was in fact a LEAP that terminated the last interglacial, the cold Late Eemian Aridity Pulse which lasted 468 years and ended with a precipitous drop into the Wisconsin ice age. And yes, we were indeed there. We had been on the stage as our stone-age selves about the same length of time during that interglacial that our civilizations have been during this one.

    (http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf)

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”

    CAGW, LIA, LEAP or BIA?

    That is the real question in all of this.

    An LIA might last on the order of centuries, like other LIA’s (Younger Dryas, LEAP) did. If there was even the remotest possibility that CO2 could function as a “climate security blanket” would you strip it out of the late Holocene atmosphere to deal with a LIA? Would you strip it out to deal with a LEAP? Or would you strip it out so as not to impede nature’s normal descent into the next glacial?

    Meanwhile enjoy this darling little interglacial, while it lasts………

  116. kim says:

    OK, thanks, Leif. Now I have to read it, and believe me, the abstract was tough enough for me.
    ============

  117. kim says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:25 pm
    OK, thanks, Leif. Now I have to read it, and believe me, the abstract was tough enough for me.
    If you get it, send me a copy, and I’ll take a look.

  118. kim says:

    Hah, Leif, called my bluff. You are far more likely to get the paper, read it, and understand it than I am. Your H&S conjecture satisfied me, but what if they didn’t use that reconstruction?
    ================

  119. kim says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    Hah, Leif, called my bluff. You are far more likely to get the paper, read it, and understand it than I am. Your H&S conjecture satisfied me, but what if they didn’t use that reconstruction?
    Scafetta http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.2812.pdf says they did…

  120. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 10, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    ………………….
    and yet you said:
    1.The only instrument with good long-term stability [TIM/SORCE] which began operation in 2003 show that TSI now is the highest ever measured by that sensor.
    and
    2.One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
    TSI highest since 2003, while Ap has fallen in the same period by about 50%
    and then
    3.down-spikes in TSI and also results in CMEs that if hitting the Earth results in up-spikes of Ap [a very close relationship]
    4.I and any scientist in the field have known this for decades.

    At best ambiguous, don’t you think so?
    1. Ok (I accept your view on that one)
    2. Wrong
    3. Correct
    4. I am not so sure (based on 2. being wrong)

  121. vukcevic says:
    August 10, 2013 at 2:57 pm
    2.One would expect Ap, CMEs, and TSI to vary together. There is no good indication that they don’t.
    They both show the solar cycle variation. Nobody would assume that they vary in direct proportion to each other and that was not meant.
    http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png and
    http://sidc.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php

    4.I and any scientist in the field have known this for decades.
    At best ambiguous, don’t you think so?

    No

  122. Pamela Gray says:

    For those of you who are unaware of any other possible explanation for global temperature trends (long and short), the one thing I can think of that is both variable enough and powerful enough to fit the energy requirements necessary to push measured temps up or down and sustain that push would be the coupled oceanic/atmospheric global overturning circulation. To be sure, there is no easy answer as it is not well understood at all. But it is thought to have sufficient energy and intrinsic variability to affect measured temps.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jrt9401.pdf

  123. Just Steve says:

    For those who think that simply demolishing the ACGW meme is enough to get the .gov to stop spending money on ridiculous “alternative” energies or trying to pass tax scams like a carbon tax, consider the fact that until a few short years ago we here in the US were still paying a federal tax on our phone bills that was passed to fund…….wait for it……….the Spanish-American war.

    Once embedded, .gov agencies and policies are almost impossible to defund or get rid of entirely.

  124. Carla says:

    Well Dr. S., nothing varies enough for a solar/climate effect?

    I hear ya loud and clear..
    What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
    You know, the ones accelerated to ACR levels through the ‘suns very own reconnection to the interstellar regime.’
    Those little interstellar blobs the helios sphere runs through at about oooh let’s say 60 to 90 years periods, may be outlining the local background interstellar magnetic field. If such densities run with the power lines.
    An occasional interstellar cloud blob as small as an eleven year or so period maybe leftovers from some other phenomena.
    And they say this old shell remnant rotates and has a positive and negative component related to rotation.
    Now we rotate the helios sphere boat we’re in. Not just ‘rockin it.’ the helios sphere boat, were spinnin’ it too.
    There now I’m happy..

  125. Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
    They meet a solar ultraviolet photon, become ionized and caught by the solar wind and swept back out of the heliosphere, and have no impact on climate.

  126. dp says:

    By itself coupled oceanic/atmospheric global overturning circulation does not represent incoming or outgoing energy and so does not affect the energy balance. It is only a thrashing of energy that is already here and which I find uninteresting. This being the case it is an excellent example of why I don’t like temperature as a measure of the balance of energy between Earth and the rest of the universe. AGW hysterics are betting their entire wad on incoming solar energy outpacing outgoing energy and blaming CO2 (actually, they’re blaming people) for the “increasing imbalance”. Temperature of the atmosphere alone doesn’t inform us of the state of the balance.

    If the above circulation means the oceans are warming by absorbing heat from the air above then I’d like to see the data and a model of the process.

  127. Gail Combs says:

    lgl says: @ August 10, 2013 at 11:11 am

    ….. One argument could be that rising sea level can be a problem, but I think it will happen to slowly to become a serious problem, and a colder planet is a bigger problem than a warmer planet…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    At least we can all agree on that. Cold does a real tap dance on the food supply. A lot of our grain producing areas are in ‘Marginal’ climates like Canada, Russia and China.

    Koppen World Map map with classification key link

    This is the real I gottcha. map link

    It shows the Koppen climate boundaries by decade in the US midwest grain belt. For the state of Kansas the boundary moves three quarters of the state north from 1970 to 1980/1990. That is ~ 150 miles (240 k) or more.

  128. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 10, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 4:51 pm
    What becomes of all the interstellar neutrals IBEX observes?
    They meet a solar ultraviolet photon, become ionized and caught by the solar wind and swept back out of the heliosphere, and have no impact on climate.

    That would be just one of about 3 processes that the ENA (energetic neutral atoms) go through. Sounds like the photoionization processes, one. They call it the filtration processes. But they know that not all of them get filtered out. Same article says the ‘a’ word, Accretion.

    Here’s wiki definition for accretion.
    Accretion (astrophysics)
    The first and most common is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disk.[1] Accretion disks are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies. Some dynamics in the disk are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentum and fall onto the central massive object. …
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)

  129. Gail Combs says:

    dp says:
    August 10, 2013 at 5:05 pm
    ….If the above circulation means the oceans are warming by absorbing heat from the air above then I’d like to see the data and a model of the process.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You can take a look at my silly wild donkey guess at comment

    I think you are looking at not one factor like just the TSI of the sun but several factors all working together.

    Speaking of SWAGs.
    Here are a couple others link 1 and link 2 and a paper link 3

  130. Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm
    Same article says the ‘a’ word, Accretion.
    The amount of mass is negligible compared to the solar wind so ACRs don’t matter.

  131. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif said:
    “Then in the early 1970s colleagues [...] and I revived the entire field and for about a decade SWC was considered a valid research field, until the correlations we had uncovered also failed.”

    You give up too easy. The correlations to solar metrics have to be there else my planetary ordered solar based long range weather forecasts would not perform as well as they do.
    This week, I have made a major breakthrough in identifying the planetary forcing that decides the real timing of solar cycle maximum in each cycle, and shows exactly why two or occasionally three cycles every 110.7yrs on average, are weak. You wouldn’t believe how simple it is.

  132. Ulric Lyons says:
    August 10, 2013 at 7:09 pm
    The correlations to solar metrics have to be there else my planetary ordered solar based long range weather forecasts would not perform as well as they do. … You wouldn’t believe how simple it is.
    You are correct about that, and I doubt you can make anybody else believe it.

  133. Carla says:

    This article is pretty tough going for me Dr.S.

    Modulation of neutral interstellar He, Ne, O in the heliosphere.
    Survival probabilities and abundances at IBEX

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4463.pdf
    Astronomy & Astrophysics July 18, 2013

    M. Bzowski1, J. M. Sokół1, M. A. Kubiak1, and H. Kucharek2
    1 Space Research Centre of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland,
    2 Space Science Center and Department of Physics, University of New Hampshire,
    Durham NH, USA

    …Neutral interstellar species enter freely the heliosphere from the LIC and flow towards
    the Sun. While direct sampling of NIS atoms at Earth’s orbit is ideologically simple,
    interpretation of the measurements to infer the abundances in the LIC requires
    taking into account ionization losses and modifications of the flux by
    solar gravitational accretion.
    This is usually referred to as the heliospheric filtration.
    As discussed by a number of authors (Izmodenov et al. 2004; Müller & Zank 2004),
    this filtration is a complex, 2-step, species-dependent process. The first step is the
    filtration through the heliospheric interface region, the second is extinction due to
    the ionization inside the termination shock (TS), i.e., within the supersonic solar wind.

    Upon entry into the heliospheric interface region, neutral interstellar gas first passes
    through the outer heliosheath (OHS) just outside the heliopause, which may
    be regarded as a bow wave in the interstellar gas. Until recently it was believed that
    due to the supersonic speed of the heliosphere in the LIC the outer boundary of this
    region is a bow shock, but recent findings by Bzowski et al. (2012); Möbius et al. (2012)
    suggest that this velocity is significantly lower, which prompted McComas et al.
    (2012) to propose that the bow wave is not a shock and its exact nature depends
    on a number of parameters whose values are not precisely known.

    Regardless, however, of the exact properties of the heliospheric bow wave,
    the plasma flow decouples from the neutral component flow in the OHS.
    Consequently, charge exchange reactions between the neutral interstellar atoms
    and ions in this region lead to the creation of another population of neutral
    atoms, the so-called secondary population (Izmodenov et al.2001)….

  134. Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 7:29 pm
    This article is pretty tough going for me Dr.S.
    Modulation of neutral interstellar He, Ne, O in the heliosphere

    First remember that perhaps 95% of the atoms in interstellar space are Hydrogen, so they are talking about a very small amount of matter.

    Until recently it was believed that due to the supersonic speed of the heliosphere in the LIC the outer boundary of this region is a bow shock, but recent findings by Bzowski et al. (2012); Möbius et al. (2012) suggest that this velocity is significantly lower, which prompted McComas et al. (2012) to propose that the bow wave is not a shock
    However, that very same McComas has even more recently [about a month ago] repeated the calculations with a better model and now suggests that there is a bow shock after all http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718111325.htm

  135. Carla says:

    I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..

    Based on our current solar polar fields strength and squashed heliospheric bubble.. which one of the images would you select that might more closely resemble our solar system?
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010900/a010906/D2-Astrospheres.jpg

    So much stuff going on .. I didn’t know this was out there.

    Check out this far-out new solar image of the suns magnetic field carpet.

    New and Remarkable Details of Sunspots Now Available from NJIT’s Big Bear Observatory
    http://www.njit.edu/news/2013/2013-262.php
    NEWARK, Aug 6 2013

    Researchers at NJIT’s Big Bear Solar Observatory (BBSO) in Big Bear, CA have obtained new and remarkably detailed photos of the Sun with the New Solar Telescope (NST). The photographs reveal never-before-seen details of solar magnetism revealed in photospheric and chromospheric features.
    “With our new generation visible imaging spectrometer (VIS),” said Wenda Cao, NJIT Associate Professor of Physics and BBSO Associate Director, “the solar atmosphere from the photosphere to the chromosphere, can be monitored in a near real time. One image was taken with VIS on May 22, 2013 in H-alpha line center. The lawn-shaped pattern illustrates ultrafine magnetic loops rooted in the photosphere below.” ..

  136. Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..
    All that takes place way out there and does not influence the sun, its cycle, or our climate.

    Based on our current solar polar fields strength and squashed heliospheric bubble..
    Hard to say, as the changes to our heliosphere due to polar fields, solar cycle, etc are very small and we are looking at our heliosphere from the inside. We are only now getting a glimpse of what it might be like, but I’m sure that the ENA method will tell us more in the years to come.

  137. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am
    The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
    The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.

    William:
    It does not matter whether a Danish newspaper article uses the word can, may, or will in regard to the current solar magnetic cycle change causing planetary cooling. The point is the public is aware there has been a significant solar magnetic cycle change and one group of people have provided logical reasons to support the assertion that the planet will cool. The warmists have over and over again stated that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and not due to solar magnetic cycle changes. There is a clear difference in scientific positions. There is an observation method to determine which position is or is not correct.

    Leif, you are stuck in the solar lukewarm paradigm. You have not accepted the possibility that your paradigm is incorrect, that some of your fundamental beliefs are incorrect. You are assuming that there cannot be significant cooling of the planet. We understand that based on your paradigm the ‘solar lukewarm paradigm’ solar magnetic cycle changes cannot ‘theoretically’ significantly change planetary temperature.

    Comment:
    The lukewarm solar magnetic cycle paradigm is that changes to TSI is the only solar mechanism that changes planetary temperature in the past and currently. We all get the lukewarm solar magnetic cycle paradigm. We do not however believe the solar lukewarm paradigm is correct based on an analysis of the paleo climatic record, an analysis of the warming in the last 150 years and an analysis of how the planet responses to forcing changes (feedback issue) by Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Choi, and so on and the work of Bond, Eddy, Svensmark, Tinsley, Yu, and so on concerning mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes directly and indirectly modulate planetary clouds and planetary temperature. Yes I have read the paper you keep showing that states there is no proof after 20 years of analysis that solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary clouds. I believe however that that paper is not correct. I can in detail explain why the GCR cloud modulation mechanism was inhibited in the last 15 years (see below why it is not necessary or productive to argue this issue).

    This is, however, no longer a theoretical issue. If the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years and the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes is correct, the planet will significantly cool. The warming will reverse. We will over the next few years determine by observation whether the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycles changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is or is not correct.

    It does not matter logically/scientifically or from the standpoint of the climate war how many scientists agree or disagree with the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes. Observational evidence will unequivocally resolve the issue. Significant cooling is only possible if a majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.

    Try to imagine significant cooling has occurred and the scientific community is forced to try to explain how that is physically possible. The scientific community will be forced to explain the observations and will be forced to look for errors in the models and the fundamental assumptions.

    Comment:
    There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle change. The warming pattern in the last 150 years does not match the pattern of warming predicted by the CO2 forcing mechanism. The warming pattern in the last 150 years is the same as previous cyclic warming. The tropical troposphere has not warmed as predicted by the general circulation model which indicates that there are one or more fundamental errors in the general circulation models. There is in the detailed paleo record a delay of 10 to 12 years (roughly one solar cycle) from the time the solar cycle period increases to the start of observed cooling. There is now the first observational evidence of cooling.
    In support of:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:40 am

    5.
    Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.

    William:
    I support your statement. Sunspots are turning into pores. The solar large scale magnetic field intensity is dropping cycle by cycle. As noted above denying the fact that there is a major solar magnetic cycle change underway will not distract the public from connecting the solar magnetic cycle change and planetary cooling.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

  138. Bjarne B says:

    @scarface and lgl
    Density of sea water, try this. Pressure is important too.

    http://www.csgnetwork.com/water_density_calculator.html

  139. William Astley says:
    August 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm
    There is an observation method to determine which position is or is not correct.
    I hope you’ll accept the verdict when it is in.

    You are assuming that there cannot be significant cooling of the planet.
    Nonsense, the planet has cooled many times in the past.

    We understand that based on your paradigm the ‘solar lukewarm paradigm’ solar magnetic cycle changes cannot ‘theoretically’ significantly change planetary temperature.
    My position is not based on theory, but on the lack of evidence [not of claims, mind you] that all cooling episodes are caused by the Sun.

    I believe however that that paper is not correct.
    Beliefs are not high on my list

    The warming will reverse.
    Assertion with no justification

    We will over the next few years determine by observation whether the assertion that the majority of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar magnetic cycles changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is or is not correct.
    You are stuck on the idea that solar activity and CO2 are the only possible causes for climate variability.

    Observational evidence will unequivocally resolve the issue.
    Nonsense. Whatever happens can be considered the sum of two contributions [sun and CO2] and you will not be able to say how much of each. Like 8 is the sum of 1 and 7, 2 and 6, 3 and 5, 4 and 4, but if you have 8 you cannot tell which of the four possibilities gave you the 8.

    There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record which correlate with solar magnetic cycle change.
    Meaningless statement. If there are 100 cooling/warming episodes and just 2 of them correlate, the statement would be true.

    denying the fact that there is a major solar magnetic cycle change underway
    You forget that I am one of the foremost proponents for a major qualitative change. You got that idea from me and my work, summarized in http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Flux-and-Sunspot-Number.pdf or http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf

  140. Ed Mertin says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    For those of you who are unaware of any other possible explanation for global temperature trends (long and short), the one thing I can think of that is both variable enough and powerful enough to fit the energy requirements necessary to push measured temps up or down and sustain that push would be the coupled oceanic/atmospheric global overturning circulation. To be sure, there is no easy answer as it is not well understood at all. But it is thought to have sufficient energy and intrinsic variability to affect measured temps.

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jrt9401.pdf

    As a youngster growing up at just a few hundred foot above sea level I was always impressed when the local shallow lakes turned over. Moved up into the mountains and began striped bass fishing large deep clear water reservoirs. I was way more impressed, now those puppies really turn over compared to their shallow water counterparts. Began wondering about the seas and oceans.

  141. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    “You are correct about that, and I doubt you can make anybody else believe it.”

    Not until they see it no, it is such a simple and elegant solution, and thoroughly self evident.

    It would be good to see you take up SWC research again, my weather forecasting work would tell you exactly when to look for a change in solar metrics that are causing the AO/NAO variations. And when you get to see how the short term planetary ordering of solar activity functions, you will be able to make deterministic forecasts too.

  142. richard verney says:

    Salvatore Del Prete says:

    August 10, 2013 at 11:40 am
    ////////////////////////////////////////////

    I am one of those who considers that most if not all of the (real) temperature changes taking place since the emergence from the LIA is due to natural variability. The question as to what impact solar radiance has on planet Earth cannot be divorced from considering how much penetration there is through the atmosphere itself, and this is where clouds (and other aerosls) quite literally cloud the issue. Without having a full understanding of the patterns of clouds and aerosol particluates for the past couple of hundred years, one cannot begin to determine what effects solar variations may impart.

    The real problem is clouds due to their chaotic behavoir. There is the possibility for so much variation and quite small changes in patterns could have significant effect. Slight variations in the time (both seasonally and time of day) that a cloud may form, the length of time it exists before disipation, the height of cloud formation, the area covered, the volume of the cloud, the water vapour and water droplet size of its contenrts, over where on planet Earth is the cloud being formed, the Earth surface albedo over which the cloud is formed etc all play a part in the amount of solar radiance reaching the surface and what warming effect that amount of solar radiance produces.

    But if it is the sun itself (rather than subtle changes in Earth’s atmosphere possibly induced by subtle changes in solar output), then surely we should be seeing changes on other planets. So this is interesting times especially if we have high resolution monitoring of other planets (and moons of Jupiter and Saturn).

  143. Ulric Lyons says:

    My latest research on sunspot cycle phase catastrophe’s every 110.7yrs on average, shows two cycles being affected at this node, with SC 25 maximum occurring in late 2027 to early 2028, and an extended and deep minimum for 24/25. From 2028 onwards, phase is recovered and as will temperatures, similar to as from 1717 and 1818. http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

  144. Ulric Lyons says:

    I would add that first big La Nina being forced by the rise in solar activities from 2027/28 will push global temperatures lower for a while, as in around 1910 and the mid 1940′s, land temperatures will though be higher.

  145. Patrick says:

    What astounds me in this thread, and in others, is the outright ridicule and rejection of “amateur” comments and opinion by an expert. The guy, an amateur geologist, who theorised that “continents drift”, was ridiculed by “educated” professional geologists. He was proven right! How many other “uneducated non-professionally trained” scientists have had their “theories” (Opinion) proven?

  146. Philip Mulholland says:

    Also @scarface and lgl
    Here is a link to a Water Density Calculator which may also help.

    Notice from the chart that for salinity values above 25 psu the maximum density of cold salt water occurs at the freezing point. The chart clearly shows that for sea water with a constant salinity warm water is less dense than cold water so the expected rule “warm water above cold water below” holds in this situation.

    However the ocean is not a closed system it is an open system in which both heat exchange and fluid exchange occur at the surface. In the tropics, under the influence of the clear skies and dry down welling air of the Hadley Cell, the water of the ocean surface is warmed by sunlight and the water salinity is also increased by net surface evaporation into the atmosphere. Consequently warm dense surface water is created. This warm surface water can, as the chart shows, be more dense than the colder less saline water from which it was created.

    Consequently it is perfectly possible in places where the surface water density increase cause by salinity increase exceeds the density decrease cause by solar energy warming, that warm dense sea water can descend into the ocean.

  147. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Leif Svalgaard said on August 10, 2013 at 7:48 am:

    The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age
    The Danish text uses the word ‘kan’ which literally translates as ‘can’ and is somewhat stronger than ‘may’.

    “Mommy, can I poke my eye out with this pencil?”

    “The pencil is sharp, your arms and hands work just fine. Yes dear, you can poke your eye out with that pencil.”

    “Mommy, may I poke my eye out with this pencil?”

    “No you may not! The iPhone factory pays less for one-eyed children!”

    I think there are nuances of meaning here greater than strength of possibility.

  148. herkimer says:

    ULRIC LYONS
    I agree that there is a 110 year climate cycle .which seems initiate a period of CET cooling lasting about 30+ years. Previous such points were 2000,1890,1780,1670 These happen about the same time as the three low solar cycles happen. Are these temperature changes the result of the solar changes ? that is the debate here . We will have ample opportunity to verify our beliefs during the rest of this decade. i happen to be one that thinks that there is a sun/ weather connection but the complete mechanism is yet to be discovered. The cooling that happen after sustained periods of about 5-10 years , particularly in the winters, when sunspot activity or solar flux drops below certain threshold , is difficult to just write off to other factors without a suitable alternative . How do these alternative forcing factors know when to start global cooling every time the solar flux drops to a certain minimum threshold and after this threshold lasts for a sustained period of 5-10 years. This cooling is apparent during major minimums , at the end of long solar cycles, and even around the years of the regular minimums[unless an El Nino is present] especially when winter temperatures are measured ,

  149. William Astley says:

    There is a significant solar magnetic cycle change underway. Sunspots are being replaced by pores. The solar large scale magnetic field intensity is significantly dropping cycle by cycle. The physical reasons for the current solar magnetic changes are not understood. The current solar magnetic cycle change is interesting from the standpoint of understanding what physically causes the solar magnetic cycle, understanding the range of variance of the solar magnetic cycle, determining the mechanisms as to how solar magnetic cycle changes affect planetary temperature, and determining how much of the warming in the last 100 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes as opposed to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    There is observational evidence that connects past cyclic climate change to solar magnetic cycle changes. The same regions that warmed in the past 100 years are the same regions that warmed cyclically when there were grand solar maximums (series of very active solar magnetic cycles) and then subsequently cooled when the grand solar maximum has followed by a Maunder like solar magnetic cycle minimum. There are nine (9) such cyclic warming and cooling periods in the current interglacial period.

    Shaviv in this paper provides observation evidence and quantitative analysis to support the assertion that solar magnetic cycle modulation of cosmic ray flux/planetary cloud cover, TSI, and so on is responsible for 0.47C ±0.19C of the planetary warming in the last 100 years. Based on Shaviv’s analysis the range of global cooling due to the current solar magnetic cycle change is estimated to be 0.47C ±0.19C or cooling in the range of 0.28C to 0.66C.

    Planetary cooling of 0.28C to 0.66C is significant (discernible from natural forcing) and measurable. Planetary cooling of 0.28C to 0.66C would provide unequivocal support for the assertion that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be less than 1C. The solar magnetic cycle deep minimums have in the past lasted for 30 to 100 years.

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Shaviv.pdf
    On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
    We examine the results linking cosmic ray flux (CRF) variations to global climate change. We then proceed to study various periods over which there are estimates for the radiative forcing, temperature change and CRF variations relative to today. These include the Phanerozoic as a whole, the Cretaceous, the Eocene, the Last Glacial Maximum, the 20th century, as well as the 11-yr solar cycle. This enables us to place quantitative limits on climate sensitivity to both changes in the CRF, and the radiative budget, F, under equilibrium. Under the assumption that the CRF is indeed a climate driver, the sensitivity to variations in the globally averaged relative change in the tropospheric ionization …. …Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47±0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.

  150. Ulric Lyons says:

    herkimer says:
    August 11, 2013 at 6:14 am

    “ULRIC LYONS
    I agree that there is a 110 year climate cycle .which seems initiate a period of CET cooling lasting about 30+ years. Previous such points were 2000,1890,1780,1670 These happen about the same time as the three low solar cycles happen. Are these temperature changes the result of the solar changes ? that is the debate here.”

    The best proof of solar forcing is not in the macro of cycle forcing, but in the micro of the noise. If I showed you how short term planetary ordering of solar activity is driving the majority of monthly deviations from average through the whole of CET, I’m not so sure there would be room for debate.

  151. HenryP says:

    Ulric Lyons says
    This week, I have made a major breakthrough in identifying the planetary forcing that decides the real timing of solar cycle maximum in each cycle, and shows exactly why two or occasionally three cycles every 110.7yrs on average, are weak. You wouldn’t believe how simple it is.
    henry says
    interesting, I have been working on this as well.
    it seems that during a time of minimum sunspots, the 22 year cycle becomes longer (going by Hale-Nicholson)
    during max. sunspots it becomes shorter.
    Hence, I expect the current solar cycle to become longer.
    I am still struggling with the planets, though
    I want to figure out when energy-in will be at its lowest
    .According to my measurements the last cycle was from 1972-1995.
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    Unfortunately I know nothing of astronomy.
    Please help me out?
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

  152. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 10, 2013 at 11:04 pm
    William Astley says:
    August 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm
    There is an observation method to determine which position is or is not correct.
    I hope you’ll accept the verdict when it is in.

    William:
    I will accept the verdict when it is in. If the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary temperature hypothesis is correct there will be the start of significant, unequivocal global cooling (0.28C to 0.66C) in the next few years. If there is no cooling observed in the next few years, observations will have proven that hypothesis to be incorrect.

    The amount of cooling that does occur and the period of time the cooling occurs in will help to resolve a number of scientific questions concerning the general circulation models and the relative forcing on planetary climate (past, current, and future): solar magnetic cycle changes VS the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    I am also interesting in the physical reasons for the solar magnetic cycle and the range the solar magnetic cycle can vary. The current solar magnetic cycle change will likely also help to answer questions concerning those subjects.

  153. William Astley says:
    August 11, 2013 at 6:57 am
    f there is no cooling observed in the next few years, observations will have proven that hypothesis to be incorrect.
    Unfortunately that will not work. It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun. That will be the argument Warmistas will use, so nothing will be decisive.

  154. HenryP says:

    Leif says
    It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun.
    henry says
    after x many years and tears at WUWT, you still believe in the carbon dioxide nonsense?

  155. HenryP says:
    August 11, 2013 at 7:43 am
    after x many years and tears at WUWT, you still believe in the carbon dioxide nonsense?
    No, but believers will say that if no cooling happens that CO2 has won out over the Sun, so the issue may not be resolved in “the next few years”.

  156. HenryP says:

    @ulric
    I want to figure out “when energy-in will be at its lowest”

    that should be

    “when the speed of cooling will be at its highest,”
    I am sure you figured that

    note that I identified 4 cycles for each quadrant of the Gleissberg cycle

    on earth there is some lag between energy in (maxima) and energy out (means)
    but I doubt if is really is as much as 110 years.
    In some countries perhaps, but not globally.

  157. vukcevic says:

    On ~107 year cycle
    Dr. Svalgaard and I had lot of disagreements on that one starting exactly four years ago (August 2009), more details here.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
    origins of which appear to be of planetary inter-modulation, it is present in the sunspot cycle (including grand minima), SSN hemispheres asymmetry, Earth’s magnetic field and the global temperatures.

  158. Ulric Lyons says:

    “It could be that the effect of increasing CO2 will offset or mask any cooling due to the Sun.”

    On the subject of colder winters, CO2 is doing no such thing. Recent winters already show that.

  159. Pamela Gray says:

    The coupled oceanic atmospheric overturning circulation (plus the coriolis affect combined with the permanent large-scale atmospheric pressure systems) has a great deal of variability and energetic power to affect how much solar shortwave radiation enters the ocean or is reflected away, thus eventually resulting in warming or cooling of our oceans and atmospheres thru teleconnections. The oceans are a fabulous heat storage sink in the upper layers and can send pools of warmer or cooler waters around the globe and belch them up to the surface where they affect land temperatures. And since this circulation can take years and decades, even centuries to complete (the time it takes is not well understood because the coupling is so complex), we can easily deduce that the variable source driver for temperature trends we should be looking for first is intrinsic to Earth and natural.

    That the science community jumped on CO2 before completely understanding the natural systems (as the above linked pdf attests) is a testament to the power of political money and emotionally charged persuasion, not detached scientific persistence in understanding the intricacies of the natural systems before looking at anthropogenic minutia.

  160. HenryP says:

    William Astley said
    is estimated to be 0.47C ±0.19C or cooling in the range of 0.28C to 0.66C.
    henry says
    you did not specify a time period given by this guy but from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…

  161. HenryP says:

    henry@vukcevik
    in your last graph there we are looking at temp. anomaly
    but from which data set?
    I prefer looking at maxima as it gives less noise and shows exactly what energy is coming in

  162. vukcevic says:

    Hi Henry
    GT graph shown in here
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
    is copied from New Scientist published in 2007 before lot of fiddling was done in the last six years.

  163. vukcevic says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 11, 2013 at 8:13 am
    ……..
    Getting close to the North Atlantic’s contribution
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
    but solar link is in there too.

  164. Richard M says:

    It is very possible that ocean overturning is responsible for major climate changes like the LIA, MWP, etc. If we go back to the last glaciation we know that the sun’s radiation was at a little different angle which led to melting of the vast glaciers covering much of the NH land mass. A relatively quick melting of this ice would inject lots of cold water into the oceans. Actually, much colder than the surface water being heated by the sun. This colder water surfacing and then sinking once again could be responsible for the ~1000 year swings we have seen over the interglacial.

    In addition, I suspect there might be smaller cycles within this larger cycle.

  165. Pamela Gray says:

    Vuk your solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set. Meaning that something far more powerful drives these trends. The solar and CO2 camps ignore powerful intrinsic factors to focus on a belief in minutia that have yet to prove any kind of energy potential necessary to drive and sustain the necessary weather pattern parameters that lead to long term temperature trends. Why I don’t know.

  166. milodonharlani says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:42 am

    The earth’s position & orientation with regard to the sun appear to be the most important determinants of climate on the scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Milankovitch cycles are IMO well supported. It took decades for this seemingly valid “consensus” to be reached, after evidence like ice & ocean cores accumulated & the relevant orbital mechanics could be worked out, as by Hays, Imbrie & Shackleton, 1976. Thank God there are still some skeptics, without whom science cannot do.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/194/4270/1121

    As you know, there’s now a growing literature on trying to predict the onset of the next glaciation.

    On the scale of millions of years, it’s arguably the positions of & connections among the continents, affecting albedo & oceanic circulation, among other factors. On the scale of tens to hundreds of millions of years, the sun’s increasing output starts to play a significant role. On the scale of billions of years, the location of the sun in its orbit of the galactic center might have an effect. The chemistry & biology of the planet have also been critical, especially in oxygenating the atmosphere & lessening its CO2. In the future, the declining quantity of water & continued solar development will be decisive.

    However, on the scale of tens to thousands of years, ie D-O & Bond Cycles & the fluctuations within them, hypotheses vary, as you note. Little changes in CO2 (one to ten molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules) have impact on climate, except perhaps as a minor feedback effect (hundreds to a thousand per 10,000 might possibly be a different matter in the dry atmosphere of a high-albedo Snowball or Slushball Earth). But IMO the jury is still out on the sun’s small variations on this time scale. Maybe it’s purely chaotic within interglacials, but the paleoclimatic record looks pretty cyclic to me. Could well be an illusion, however.

    CACCA gained an ideological stranglehold on “climate science” before enough was known about the earth’s system to form such a rigid opinion. Much of what has been learned since the 1980s has been ignored or misinterpreted as a result of adherence to this orthodox doctrine, such as the PDO, discovered by a PNW fisheries researcher in 1997. Shades of plate tectonics. Climate science may now be out of its infancy, but is at best still a toddler, IMO.

  167. HenryP says:

    On the issue of a little ice age coming: It is of course possible that certain factors, like an incidental extraordinary large shift of cloud formation more towards the equator simultaneous with an extraordinary coverage of large areas with snow, mostly NH, could trap us, amplifying the cooling due to less insolation. In 1940/1 there was a particular large amount of snow in Europe.

    However, I am counting on mankind using its ingenuity to be able to reverse that trap, should such a situation occur (usually what would happen is that there would be no spring or summer)

    For example, sprinkling carbon (!!) dust on the snow could trap radiation, rather than reflect it back to space.

    But alI I am seeing now, is that we will nicely paddle back on our cycle to where we were in 1950…
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    @pamela
    if it were not to be the planets that seem to switch the power of the sun from positive to negative every so often, (see above graph) , then what is it?

  168. RobW says:

    Unfortunately the CBC is still at it. Notice they closed the comment section for fear the real story of the flatline temps from ARGO show the story is bunk.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/08/09/science-fish-plankton-relocating-climate-change.html

  169. vukcevic says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 11, 2013 at 9:42 am

    Vuk your solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set. Meaning that something far more powerful drives these trends.
    ‘’’’’’’’’’’
    Let’s see noise or something more powerful.
    I think you are very familiar with loaded shotgun and its triggering mechanism.
    1. Well, the Arctic is a loaded gun, which goes of intermittently either with powerful earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. It is most lava productive volcanic area on the globe, since 1600 had only 2% of eruptions but produced more than 30% of lava output. So tectonic pressures are produced by magma not gasses. At temperatures above melting various compounds are highly conductive (easy movement of electrons) and susceptible to good electric currents inductions.
    2. Arctic is constantly exposed to electric currents
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Image1.gif
    and the most strongly during solar storms.
    NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic. “The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms”. Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules.
    And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
    Now lets remember that is electric current and is of equal strength in any part of a closed circuit (it has to be closed else there wouldn’t exist).
    3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up occasionally, possibly randomly unless there is occasional push on the trigger by those powerful currents,
    Dr. S will tell you that geomagnetic storms (as measured by Ap index) occur at sunspot cycle rate (most often on declining slope of the cycle)
    4. Hence we have the mysterious links
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
    And what next?
    Remember: 2% of eruptions but produced more than 30% of lava
    then you can read notes on the
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
    There you are: sun, energy, tectonics, lava, blockage of critical passage way, ocean currents, SST and natural temperature variability.
    No “solar influence creates mathematical noise in an other-driven data set.”, but sheer power of the tectonics triggered by powerful electric currents.
    But of course you are entitled to your opinions, even to rubbish others without knowing the relevant facts.

  170. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..

    All that takes place way out there and does not influence the sun, its cycle, or our climate.

    Well no, not way out there. Although this is where new mass and gas enter the solar system

    In accretion, the goldilocks zone is the Halo region, out to 1 AU. Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle and our climate. Seeing as how we at Earth are in this ahhh goldilocks zone orbiting inside this density changing halo. Water, water everywhere.
    What to do with all those extra electrons.. that seem to be on the increase in the last few years now.

    But that’s not today’s question.

    Picture the ‘rotation of the magnetic shell’ the solar system is embedded. Picture also a thin current sheet of changing polarity.

  171. vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
    NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
    No, not at all. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feeds energy into the tail away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].

    Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
    Not impressive at all as that power does not reach the Earth and is only a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind impacting the Earth at all times. Page 31 of my 40-year old paper explains how to calculate the current. This is old hat.

    3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up
    The current does not flow through Iceland at all.

  172. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 10, 2013 at 9:48 pm

    Carla says:
    August 10, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    I wasn’t so worried about that bow shock or not. Figured there might be issues with a changing solar cycle and associated reduction in size relative to outputs..

    All that takes place way out there and does not influence the sun, its cycle, or our climate.

    Well no, not way out there. Although this is where new mass and gas enter the solar system

    In accretion, the goldilocks zone is the Halo region, out to 1 AU. Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle and our climate. Seeing as how we at Earth are in this ahhh goldilocks zone orbiting inside this density changing halo. Water, water everywhere.
    What to do with all those extra electrons.. that seem to be on the increase in the last few years now.

    But that’s not today’s question.

    Picture the ‘rotation of the magnetic shell’ the solar system is embedded. Picture also a thin current sheet of changing polarity overlaid and rotating in the solar system neighborhood..

  173. Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
    vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
    NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
    No, not the way it works. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feed energy into the tail of the magnetosphere away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].

    Even more impressive was the substorm’s power. Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. And that is equivalent to energy of an M6 earthquake.
    Not impressive at all as that power does not reach the Earth and is only a small fraction of the energy in the solar wind impacting the Earth at all times. An average huricane releases 100,000 times that amount of energy in a day. Page 31 of my 40-year old paper explains how to calculate the current in a substorm. This is old hat: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
    3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up
    The current does not flow through Iceland at all.
    P.S. the preview didn’t help me [if I don't look]

  174. Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
    Well no, not way out there. Although this is where new mass and gas enter the solar system
    and where the solar system loses 4 million tons per second…

  175. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am

    vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
    NASA’s fleet of THEMIS spacecraft discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
    No, not at all. The flux ropes connect to the Earth’s magnetic field and feeds energy into the tail away from the Sun. The tail is unstable and ‘blows up’ occasionally. The electric currents then flow from the tail into the ionosphere and back out [that is the closing of the circuit].

    As long as we are ‘blowing up’ the Earth, magneto tail. Maybe we should blow up Jupiter’s, magneto tail, at a time when Earth is located within close proximity to it. Talk a bout the possibility of some more ACR entering the halo region..

  176. Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
    Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle
    If you believe that then you might enjoy the ultimate theory on this [explaining everything]:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf

  177. Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:57 am
    Maybe we should blow up Jupiter’s, magneto tail, at a time when Earth is located within close proximity to it.
    We are never in ‘close proximity’ to it. It is at least 660 million km away.

  178. Dan Pangburn says:

    Low-altitude cloud area variation with cosmic rays is a THEORY with mixed corroboration.

    Influence of Low-altitude cloud area on average global temperature is a CALCULATION. http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/

    A physics-based equation, using only one external forcing, CALCULATES average global temperature anomalies since before 1900 with R2 = 0.9. http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . Everything not explicitly considered must find room in that unexplained 10%.

  179. Carla says:

    The PT theorists may or may not like this. But is related to my comment above about a blowin up a Jovian magnetotail.

    Cassini observation of Jovian anomalous continuum radiation

    Sheng-Yi Ye1, D. A. Gurnett1, J. D. Menietti1, W. S. Kurth1,
    G. Fischer2, P. Schippers1, G. B. Hospodarsky1

    12 APR 2012
    [1] Jovian anomalous continuum is a narrowband electromagnetic radiation near 10 kHz that can escape from Jupiter’s magnetosphere to interplanetary space. One possible source mechanism is the magnetosheath re-radiation of the Jovian low frequency radio emissions such as the quasiperiodic (QP) radio emissions, broadband kilometric radiation (bKOM) and non-thermal continuum. Jovian anomalous continuum was consistently observed by the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science instrument from 2000 to 2004, right before the Saturn orbit insertion, which means the radiation can be detected as far as 8 AU away from Jupiter. An analysis of intensity versus radial distance shows that the Jovian anomalous continuum has a line source rather than a point source, consistent with the theory that the emission is radiated by the whole length of the magnetotail. The emissions are modulated at the system III period of Jupiter and are unpolarized. Since the lower cutoff frequency of the anomalous continuum is related to the plasma frequency in the magnetosheath of Jupiter, which is a function of solar wind density, the recurrent variations of the lower cutoff frequency can be used as a remote diagnostic of the solar wind condition at Jupiter. We propose that the frequency dispersion, a unique characteristic of the anomalous continuum, is likely a comprehensive effect of both the slow group velocity near the local plasma frequency and the refraction/scattering of the waves by density structures as they propagate in the magnetosheath.

  180. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
    …….
    Long on comment but lot of it misleading and in part totally wrong.
    Currents are induced into lithosphere up to several hundred km depth, with concentration of induction being the strongest within the areas of highest conductivity.

  181. Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 12:20 pm
    Cassini observation of Jovian anomalous continuum radiation
    You don’t seem to realize how weak radio emission is. The total energy received by all radio telescopes ever since the first one in the 1930s is less that the kinetic energy of a single snow flake falling to the ground…

  182. vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 12:25 pm
    Currents are induced into lithosphere up to several hundred km depth
    No, not ‘up to’, at several hundred km depth. They have no effect on the ground, except weakening the effects of the overhead currents.

  183. HenryP says:

    henry@ulric lyons
    IMO a quadrant (2 single solar cycles) is a quarter of the 88 year gleissberg cycle (=11 normal single solar cycles)
    seems to me the saturn-uranus synodic cycle is the strongest in showing a direct correlation, of
    the 4 quadrants of 22/23 years (av) that I am seeing and predicting.
    If this be true we could expect to hit rock bottom (max. speed global cooling) in 2016
    which is exactly as I had already predicted from my own data….
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/

    If the other planets have no influence…?

  184. vukcevic says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 11, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    (Currents are induced into lithosphere) at several hundred km depth.

    So now we have induced currents, don’t we?
    The current does not flow through Iceland at all.
    Not if Iceland was floating in the air, but Iceland and surrounding seas are floating on just 15-20 km thick crust with highly conductive (high gravity coefficient –metal rich) magma

    High latitudes volcanic activity from Iceland to Alaska is triggered by geomagnetic storms as measured by Ap index or another ‘mysterious’ coincidence?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm

    Science is not settled; not on solar, not on volcanic, not on climate and certainly not even at anthropogenic Stanford

  185. vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    So now we have induced currents, don’t we?
    As I have told you many times.

    Not if Iceland was floating in the air, but Iceland and surrounding seas are floating on just 15-20 km thick crust with highly conductive (high gravity coefficient –metal rich) magma
    No, the magma is not particularly conductive. The induced currents are placed at about 500-700 km depth where the conductivity is 50-500 times higher than that of the magma.

    High latitudes volcanic activity from Iceland to Alaska is triggered by geomagnetic storms as measured by Ap index or another ‘mysterious’ coincidence?
    They are not. Not enough energy, and no convincing evidence. Many people have looked at this, but no evidence found.

  186. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 11, 2013 at 11:43 am

    vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:30 am
    3. If you have an old cable with a ‘worn-out’ bit and if it is going to ‘blow’ it will be at its weakest part. Weakest and ‘worn-out’ bit is Iceland and surrounding atmospheric or even more so submarine volcanic area. This would blow-up

    The current does not flow through Iceland at all.

    Hey Vuks, I think he is right. Should have said, Greenland. The Greenland vortex dump and I think there is another on the opposite side.

  187. Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    <i.The Greenland vortex dump and I think there is another on the opposite side.
    Have you checked out the Bermuda Triangle?

  188. vukcevic says:

    If in the UK switch to BBC4, very relevant.

  189. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:46 am
    Accumulation of mass and gas due to the suns own gravitational function. It influences solar cycle

    If you believe that then you might enjoy the ultimate theory on this [explaining everything]:
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots.pdf
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/See-and-Meteor-Theory-of-Sunspots-Figures.pdf

    Yes, well talk about accumulations of mass, Jupiter and Saturn are ranked high as a duo system, within this solar system.

    But the Jupiter magnetotail blow up you misunderstood?
    If the Jupiter magnetosphere is impacted by a solar event, (CME or) and the magnetotail releases some of that energy into space, the particles it is said, “become accelerated to ACR levels.”
    Depends on which angle, cause they think maybe we are getting some of our anomalous cosmic rays ACR from Jupiter.

  190. Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    If the Jupiter magnetosphere is impacted by a solar event, (CME or) and the magnetotail releases some of that energy into space, the particles it is said, “become accelerated to ACR levels.”
    The ACRs are but a tiny element in the energy budget of the heliosphere, and the part we may get from Jupiter is a tiny part of that tiny part.

  191. Carla says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    August 11, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Carla says:
    August 11, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    <i.The Greenland vortex dump and I think there is another on the opposite side.
    Have you checked out the Bermuda Triangle?

    Um.. no. Not lately, used to be associated with unusual atmospheric phenomenom.

  192. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    HenryP says:
    August 11, 2013 at 8:31 am
    William Astley said
    (William: Dr Nir J. Shaviv estimated) is estimated to be 0.47C ±0.19C or cooling in the range of 0.28C to 0.66C.
    henry says
    you did not specify a time period given by this guy but from the look at my tables, it looks earth’s energy stores are depleted now and average temperatures on earth will probably fall by as much as what the maxima are falling now. I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…

    William:
    The cooling will be more significant and more rapid than expected. This is an odd problem due to the climate war. The scientists are forced to explain what is happening based on CO2 causing the warming. The observations do not, however, support that assertion.

    Comment:
    It is obvious based on what is currently happening to Dr. Salby that the cabal will directly attack ones career and reputation if a person scientifically questions the extreme AGW paradigm. Dr Salby is a pure scientist an author of a graduate textbook on atmospheric science. I am deeply saddened by the attacks on Dr Salby. As people are not fearless and have families and love ones to support, there is a conscious and unconscious tendency to stay within the paradigm of one’s field to preserve employment and for future advancement.

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

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/

    The warming in the last 100 years is regional distributed, not global; the Greenland ice sheet and the high Arctic has warmed the most. As the CO2 forcing function is logarithmically proportional to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 is more or less evenly distributed in the atmosphere, the warming due to CO2 should be more or less evenly distributed in the global if solar energy was evenly distributed on the surface of the planet. As the planet is a sphere, solar energy is not evenly distributed on the surface of the planetl. The most amount of solar energy input occurs in the tropics and the least amount in the polar regions.

    The most amount of warming due to the CO2 forcing function/mechanism should therefore occur in the tropics as the most amount of long wave radiation is emitted to space in the tropics. That is not what is observed. The Northern hemisphere ex-tropics warmed twice as much as the global as whole and four times more than the tropics.

    The warmists appeal to TSI changes to explain the warming from 1850 to 1950. The warming 1850 to 1950 is regional not global following the pattern of warming 1950 to present. TSI changes cannot explain a regional pattern of warming. TSI forcing is not regional. The most amount of warming occurred in Greenland and in the high Arctic. TSI increases, if they did occur, should have warmed the entire planet and again as the planet is spherical the most amount of warming should have occurred in the tropics.

    To produce regional warming rather than global warming with most of the warming concentrated in high latitude Northern regions requires a different mechanism. Modulation of planetary cloud cover can produced regional warming and as the modulation mechanism is strong in the high latitudes due to the orientation of the geomagnetic field the mechanism can explain the region pattern of warming that has occurred cyclically. I have provided a link to Svensmark’s paper three or four times which explains the polar anomaly (Antarctic ice sheet cools when the Greenland ice sheet warms and vice verse cyclically, this phenomena is also called the polar anomaly which is confusing as the entire pole region is not out of sync in terms of temperature rise, only the two ice sheets). I can explain why this is so physically if anyone is interested.

    The point of the above comments is the inhibiting mechanism that was removing ions from the atmosphere is complete. GCR modulation of planetary clouds is now returning to normal. There will be significant and rapid cooling of both the Greenland Ice sheet and the Arctic. As both the Greenland Ice sheet and the high Arctic are covered by ice there will no delay in cooling due to the time lag to heat sea water. The total amount of global cooling will be delayed somewhat as the ocean temperature reaches equilibrium for a colder high latitude.

    Comment: The warming is going to reverse. The mechanism that caused the warming in the last 100 years was not the increase in atmospheric CO2. The planet does not suddenly and rapidly cool for no reason. TSI is not reduced. There needs to be a physical explanation for cooling.

  193. vukcevic says:

    Vukcevic : High latitudes volcanic activity from Iceland to Alaska is triggered by geomagnetic storms as measured by Ap index or another ‘mysterious’ coincidence?
    Dr. Svalgaard:: They are not. Not enough energy, and no convincing evidence. Many people have looked at this, but no evidence found.

    Iceland and the Arctic are unique, there continental plates are spreading out. Magma pouring out to the surface is directly from the Mantle’s convection cell (thermal circulation all the way from outer core- liquid iron & nickel to the Earth’s surface).
    In most of other volcanic areas magma is product of tectonic plates subduction process, with no direct link with convection cells.
    Evidence is there if you look in the right place, and I did
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
    first posted on WUWT one year ago, almost to a day.

  194. Carla says:

    This article describes observations at 110 MHz to 2300 MHz pg. 9. Quite cool, on how they see our neighboring H1 shell rotate. We I think are in the L1 shell, adjacent to H1 and may have the same rotation qualities.

    Rotation Measure Synthesis of the Local
    Magnetized ISM
    Maik Wolleben
    Covington Fellow, DRAO
    http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/Astro2010/talks/wolleben.pdf

    from pgs. 25-26 of this pdf presentation

    - Positive φ in the east changes to negative φ in
    the west, suggesting that the B-field is wrapped
    around the bubble
    - Polarized emission at φ=0 rad/m2 along the
    centre of the bubble links these two regions
    - Shape and implied B-field configuration of this
    HI bubble suggest that is has expanded
    asymmetrically
    - Expansion constrained to only one direction
    along the line-of-sight
    - The shells act as a Faraday-rotating screen to the strong background
    emission and also as a weaker mixed emitting and rotating slab

  195. vukcevic says:
    August 11, 2013 at 3:46 pm
    Iceland and the Arctic are unique, there continental plates are spreading out.
    So what, the plates are spreading all along the mid Atlantic ridge [from] North to South. and many other places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif nothing unique about Iceland, and no induced currents as the conductivity is too low: resistivity of the magma ~100 Ohm meter compared to some 5 Ohm meter at depth of ~500 km.

  196. William Astley says:

    http://www.solen.info/solar/

    Later we should have a poll to estimate when the sun will start having spotless days and how long the sun will be spotless. Livingston and Penn’s estimated in their 2006 paper was that the sun will be spotless in 2015 which is conservative as based on L & P’s data the sun will no longer be capable for producing sunspots in 2015. Based on past Maunder like minimums the sun will be spotless for 50 to 100 years.

    Spotless days starting in 2014 and a completely spotless sun mid-2014 will catch everyone’s attention as there will also be significant high Arctic and Greenland Ice sheet cooling. (5C to 6C cooling in the high Northern latitudes.) The global cooling will lag 2 or 3 years as it takes time for the ocean to cool. The estimated range of global cooling based on Shaviv’s calculation is 0.28C to 0.66C.)

    My prediction is that we will start having sun spotless days by the end of the year as there are no longer sunspots on the surface of the sun only short lived pores. Today for example there are no pores in the solar northern hemisphere only pores in the southern hemisphere.

    It should be noted that the standard counting methodology for sunspots is likely not applicable for counting pores.

    There are of course more pores generated as the magnetic ropes are torn to pieces in the convection zone. The resultant pore on the surface of the sun is short lived as compared to the larger higher magnetic field intensity sunspot. A sunspot’s life time is roughly one complete solar rotation although some of the larger sunspots in past solar cycles have survived for a couple of rotations. The pore’s life time is now typically ½ to ¼ rotation of the sun.

    As no one is discussing the fact that pores have replaced sunspots likely people will be surprised when there are suddenly pore less days early 2014. The smooth sunspot graph will also look odd as it will appear to suddenly drop off early 2014 and then flat line starting mid 2014.

  197. William Astley says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:26 pm
    A sunspot’s life time is roughly one complete solar rotation
    You are confusing sunspots with active region. A typical spot only lives a couple of days and even more than half of active regions [groups] live less than 2 days.

    people will be surprised when there are suddenly pore less days early 2014.
    I will be very surprised if there will be pore less days if spots are turning into pores. What are you going to do if your prediction does not come to pass?

  198. HenryP says:

    pity you guys do not have any results, so all you do is speculate…
    anyways, I am going with the saturn and uranus switch

    perhaps Uranus’ apparent sideways motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) as distinct from the other planets operates as a pushpull trigger

  199. William Astley says:

    In reply to:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    William Astley says:
    August 11, 2013 at 11:26 pm
    A sunspot’s life time is roughly one complete solar rotation
    You are confusing sunspots with active region. A typical spot only lives a couple of days and even more than half of active regions [groups] live less than 2 days.
    people will be surprised when there are suddenly pore less days early 2014.
    I will be very surprised if there will be pore less days if spots are turning into pores. What are you going to do if your prediction does not come to pass?
    William:
    I am not. If you prefer call the pores a group. The `sunspot group` evolves as you note and its lifetime is typically one rotation of the sun. The pore group`s lifetime is ½ to ¼ rotation of the sun.
    You have not made any predictions. You do not have any skin in the game. Are you saying it is impossible that the sun could be spotless mid-2014 by the end of 2014?

    Perhaps you could be more descriptive of what you predict will happen to the sun by mid-2014 and by the start of 2015. You have not explained why sunspots have been replaced by pores and do not acknowledge that the change from sunspot to pores will result in a spotless sun.

    Any comment on the reduction in the solar large scale magnetic field cycle to cycle to cycle?

    http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
    Comment: Your attitude in this forum is flippant and sarcastic which is excusable for now as you do not understand the implications of significant abrupt cooling. The current solar magnetic cycle change appears to be the specific special solar magnetic cycle that causes Heinrich events. The Heinrich cooling occurs from time to time (roughly every 8000 to 10,000 years) after the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. We have had the warming phase and are now starting to experience the normal cooling of the D-O cycle.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
    Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years.

    ABRUPT CHANGE IN EARTH’S CLIMATE SYSTEM
    http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/teaching/CClittell/readings/Jan31_Overpeck_and_Cole_2006.pdf

    Cold-climate abrupt change occurs with a characteristic timescale of appro.1500 years, a feature that must be explained by any proposed mechanism. North Atlantic and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) records exhibit a period of approx.1470 years (64, 65). However, the adjacent ice core isotope record from the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) site exhibits periods closer to 1670 and 1130–1330 years, which is in agreement with the independently dated record from Hulu Cave (49, 66). Time series studies generally converge on a picture of a noisy climate system paced by a regular, perhaps external, forcing, with the sensitivity of the system to the forcing varying depending on background conditions or stochastic variability [e.g., (67– 69)]. Solar forcing, although subtle, is the leading candidate for external forcing and has been found to be consistent with either a 1450–1470–year period (70, 71) or the 1667- and 1130-year periods (66).

    The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

  200. Ulric Lyons says:

    William Astley says:
    “The current solar magnetic cycle change appears to be the specific special solar magnetic cycle that causes Heinrich events.”

    Heinrich events would have to be a whole series of weak solar cycles over one or two centuries, you won’t be able to tell from this cycle. Every 10th cycle there will be 2-3 weak cycles from regular phase catastrophe (as in SC’s 24&25). Clearly there are weak cycles that occur away from the 110.7yr nodes too, there’s bound to be at least one per century, but it would take a long string of those to produce some thing like the 8.2Kyr event. I don’t see any evidence for that happening this century.

  201. Ulric Lyons says:

    HenryP says:

    “Unfortunately I know nothing of astronomy.”

    “pity you guys do not have any results, so all you do is speculate…
    anyways, I am going with the saturn and uranus switch

    perhaps Uranus’ apparent sideways motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) as distinct from the other planets operates as a pushpull trigger”

    I never had much luck when I speculated on mechanisms first, neither does anyone else by the look. I did once speculate on a magnetic push-pull from Uranus, but it was a cul-de-sac. Just empty your mind, eyes wide open, and push on hard until you see something really big.

  202. herkimer says:

    WILLIAM ASTLEY

    “there will also be significant high Arctic and Greenland Ice sheet cooling. (5C to 6C cooling in the high Northern latitudes.) ”

    I am already seeing this type of winter temperature drops in Canada since last year , The Prairies and Northwestern Forest regions of Canada saw a drop of 4.9C and 4.7C from last winter. The Arctic Tundra, mountains and Fiords saw a drop of 4C and 3.9C since 2010 . Canadian winters nation wide were 2.5 C colder than 2010. These are the deep land areas where the cooling is going to show up first . The very cold winters of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were the first indication of what happens when solar flux drops to very low levels near solar minimums. As the solar flux drops below 100 and to levels like 67-80 levels in the next few years , these cold winters may continue for the Northern Hemisphere nations

  203. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 12:25 am
    I am not. If you prefer call the pores a group. The `sunspot group` evolves as you note and its lifetime is typically one rotation of the sun. The pore group`s lifetime is ½ to ¼ rotation of the sun.
    You cannot nilly-willy change established terminology if your goal is to communicate. From the sunspot literature: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lifetime-Groups.pdf [Table V] you can see that 39.5% of all sunspot groups only live one day and that 53.5% only live two days or less. Pores [and groups that are pores] live even shorter lives.

    Are you saying it is impossible that the sun could be spotless mid-2014 by the end of 2014?
    You are moving the goalpost. You used to say end of ‘this year’. Come 2014 you’ll say end of 2015, and so on. And, yes, I hold it to be highly unlikely that the sun wil be spotless the second half of 2014. You are sufficiently vague to have an out [just in case]. I interpret your statement to mean that for six months [July-Dec 2014] there will be no spots whatsoever on the Sun [you can sharpen that to 'how many days?", 20, 50, 100?]. Another interpretation is that there would at least one day with no spots. If so, that is not unusual, just check our cycle 14: http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png where there were several days where the sunpot number was zero [check the yellow curve] at solar max 1905-1908.

    Any comment on the reduction in the solar large scale magnetic field cycle to cycle to cycle?
    First you should define what you mean by the ‘solar large scale magnetic field’. I interpret the phrase as mean the dipolar polar field [the largest magnetic strucure on the Sun]. That field waxes and vanes all the time, sometimes it is large, sometimes it is small. Only a very small part [one in a 1000] of the solar magnetic field erupting on the surface makes it to the poles [the rest is cancelled out on its way]. That is the magnetic flux of only about 5 active regions compared to the more than 3000 that occur in a typical cycle. Small-number statistics being what it is, that number could by chance to 3 or 6 or any other small number [tossing a coin 5 times you can easily end up with 4 heads].

    Comment: Your attitude in this forum is flippant and sarcastic
    Actually factual and to the point.

    you do not understand the implications of significant abrupt cooling.
    First of all, there is no cooling [yet]; secondly, the implications have nothing to do with the causes.

    The current solar magnetic cycle change appears to be the specific special solar magnetic cycle that causes Heinrich events. The Heinrich cooling occurs from time to time (roughly every 8000 to 10,000 years)
    You use the word ‘appears’ a lot. Appearances can often decieve, and are usually just wishful thinking. Heinrich events may have a simple explanation “During the last glacial time, large ice sheets rimmed the North Atlantic. At certain times, these ice sheets released large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic. Heinrich events are an extreme example of this, when the Laurentide ice sheet disgorged excessively large amounts of freshwater into the Labrador Sea in the form of icebergs”. We don’t have a handy Laurentide ice sheet at the present, so no Heinrich event appears to be forthcoming.

  204. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 12:25 am
    The Heinrich cooling
    It appears that Heinrich events are triggered by warming in during the 1000-2000 years before the events [no cooling], so it appears that the solar pores have little to do with the events.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/33/13415 “temperature increasing by approximately 2 °C over a 1–2 kyr interval prior to a Heinrich event.”.
    Here http://www.heinrichevents.org/masterpage.php?&p=references you can learn more about Heinrich events.

  205. HenryP says:

    Ulric lyons
    I did once speculate on a magnetic push-pull from Uranus, but it was a cul-de-sac.
    henry says
    how on earth did you end up there?

    Let’s do this together?

    The graphs here
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
    represent almost all of my data on maximum temps.
    The relevant dates that I extracted / projected from my 2 graphs there are ,
    1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
    1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
    2) max speed of cooling or warming & turning points
    1927, 1972, 2016

    1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus 1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
    2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus 1919, 1965, 2009,

    Note that in all 7 of my results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the switch” occurs.

    It is those two planets working together that seem to stop runaway cooling or runaway warming…
    The other planets probably have some interference either delaying or extending the normal cycle time a little bit.

    Before anyone here starts throwing me with temp. anomaly graphs from year voetsek:
    Can I remind you that the global temperature record we have before 1927 is at best just sketchy. We donot really have a global temp. baseline to work with before that time. Using CET only is a trap, because of the weather…. This means that for the observer, it would seem as if global temp. were going up from 1927 onward, as per my quoted graphs.

  206. HenryP says:

    Herkimer said
    The Prairies and Northwestern Forest regions of Canada saw a drop of 4.9C and 4.7C from last winter. The Arctic Tundra, mountains and Fiords saw a drop of 4C and 3.9C since 2010 . Canadian winters nation wide were 2.5 C colder than 2010. These are the deep land areas where the cooling is going to show up first . The very cold winters of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were the first indication of what happens when solar flux drops to very low levels near solar minimums. As the solar flux drops below 100 and to levels like 67-80 levels in the next few years , these cold winters may continue for the Northern Hemisphere nations

    henry says
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
    If you look there: here is what I said:

    “As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become both cooler and drier.”

    I have been trying to work out when the droughts
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
    will start.

    As explained/CALCULATED in my previous post, it appears 1927=2016
    From 1927 is 5 years to 1932. So these droughts will start in ca. 2020-2021
    We only have about 7 “fat” years left….
    Please move south, you all there at > 40 latitudes….
    If you already experience cooling and droughts now, you must remember that it will not get any “better” in the next two or three decades….

  207. William Astley says:

    Leif,
    You appear to attempt to distract the conversation from what is current happening to the sun and global cooling by asserted that what I am stating is not back by peer reviewed papers and observations. Livingston and Penn’s peer reviewed paper asserted that a linear extrapolation of the decline in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots indicates the sun will be spotless in 2015.

    The average lifetime of a numbered sunspot group is not a day or two. The key measured variable is numbered sunspot group.

    It is an observational fact that sunspots are being replaced by pores due to an unexplained change that has happened to the sun. There is no NASA explanation as to why sunspots are being replaced by pores. A pore is not the same as a sunspot which is the reason why a pore is called a pore rather than a sunspot. The lifetime of a pore group is less than the lifetime of sunspot group which makes sense physically.

    As I stated pores are counted as if they were sunspots, which hides the observational fact that sunspots have gradually disappeared and have been replaced by short lived numerous pores. A sun that is covered with pores is different than a sun that is covered by sunspots.

    2009 EOS
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
    The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.

    Yet although the Sun’s magnetic polarity has reversed and the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (see Figure 1); in fact, nearly all of these features are seen only on flux magnetograms and are difficult to detect on whitelight images.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/

  208. Leif is never going to concede to being wrong on his notions that the sun does not drive the climate, even n the face of past history which clearly shows this to be the case.

    Leif continues to not appreciate the fact that the solar variations since the close of the Dalton Minimum were not extreme enough to overcome random earthly climatic fluctuations therefore causing solar /climatic correlations to appear not to hold up or not stand the test of time.

    Leif you will learn as this decade proceeds if the prolonged solar minimum turns out to be as weak as forecasted by many of us that you are wrong.

    Leif you just don’t get how the climatic system of earth functions which is, it is non linear with thresholds, meaning the same climatic forcings can give a different climatic result.

    That is why it is hard to get direct solar/climatic correlations when the sun has a limited amount of variability and at the same time has gone from lulls to peaks on a regular basis since coming out of the Dalton Solar Minimum.

    I many times that since we came out of the Dalton Minimum the solar effects did NOT VARY ENOUGH, and therefore would be masked by earthly random climatic events. Another words you are (Leif) just proving my points that the solar climate connection in recent times is hard to find.

    What you fail to understand is ,there are threshold solar values and duration of time for these solar values following years of sub -solar activity in general that will be able to exert enough influence on the climatic system of earth through direct and secondary effects which will result in the climate to change and correlate with the sun when the solar activity reaches extreme values for a long enough duration of time.

  209. I (said) many times, it should read in the above post

  210. Abrupt climatic change will come about when solar parameters reach a degree of magnitude strong enough and a duration of time long enough which will result in bringing the climate system of earth to some sort of a threshold through direct and secondary effects.

    Again the degree of magnitude change and duration of time has to be sustained for a long enough period of time.

    The sun is the only item which influences the climate, that changes enough often enough in intensity that can explain these many abrupt climatic changes.

    Leif has no alternative explanations.

  211. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 9:17 am
    Livingston and Penn’s peer reviewed paper asserted that a linear extrapolation of the decline in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots indicates the sun will be spotless in 2015.
    Livingston, Penn, and my peer reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/apjl2012-Liv-Penn-Svalg.pdf states “By extrapolating our sunspot formation fraction to the predicted peak of Cycle 24 (in mid-2013) the sunspot formation fraction would be approaching 0.5. This suggests a rather small SSN for this cycle, in agreement with some recent Cycle 24 predictions (Svalgaard et al. 2005; Hathaway 2012). And while there is no physical mechanism which suggests that we should extrapolate further, it is fascinating to see that the sunspot formation fraction would drop below 0.2 by 2020. This would suggest that although magnetic flux would be erupting at the solar surface during Cycle 25, only a small fraction of it would be strong enough to form visible sunspots or pores”. We do not suggest that the Sun will be spotless in 2015.

    The average lifetime of a numbered sunspot group is not a day or two. The key measured variable is numbered sunspot group.
    All peer reviewed papers on this subject show that most sunspot groups only live a day or two. By limiting yourself to numbered groups you bias the selection as only long-lived groups are numbered.

    It is an observational fact that sunspots are being replaced by pores due to an unexplained change that has happened to the sun. There is no NASA explanation as to why sunspots are being replaced by pores.
    Livingston, Penn, and myself are the experts on this subject; what we know is what NASA knows. What is happening is we are losing the pores and the small spots.

    As I stated pores are counted as if they were sunspots
    No, pores are not and have never been counted as sunspots. They are explicitly excluded. If you want to know how sunspots are counted, check my peer reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003p.pdf . In this other peer reviewed paper http://www.leif.org/research/IAUS286-Mendoza-Svalgaard.pdf there are more details on how it is done.
    Now, there might be some confusion as to what a pore is. In the Zurich tradition, pores are short-lived [hours] ‘grayish’ areas less than 3 arc seconds in diameter which are not counted. In some English-language papers spots without penumbrae are considered pores. These are classified as types A and B in the standard classification of groups. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Freq-small-groups.png you can see that the frequency of the smallest spots types A and B [which you may think are pores] has been dropping steadily the past 60+ years, so, contrary to your claim, there are relatively fewer and fewer ‘pores’ not more and more.

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 12, 2013 at 9:53 am
    Leif you will learn as this decade proceeds if the prolonged solar minimum turns out to be as weak as forecasted by many of us that you are wrong.
    I didn’t know you had expertise in forecasting solar activity. Now, it is well-known that I have.

    I many times that since we came out of the Dalton Minimum the solar effects did NOT VARY ENOUGH, and therefore would be masked by earthly random climatic events. Another words you are (Leif) just proving my points that the solar climate connection in recent times is hard to find.
    You are in conflict with all the people claiming that the effect is obvious and large, but it is good to see that you realize that there is no evidence for any solar influence.

    What you fail to understand is ,there are threshold solar values and duration of time for these solar values following years of sub -solar activity in general that will be able to exert enough influence on the climatic system of earth through direct and secondary effects which will result in the climate to change and correlate with the sun when the solar activity reaches extreme values for a long enough duration of time.
    Indeed, except ‘fail to understand is’ might be replaced by ‘are unimpressed by dubious, unsubstantiated, wishful claims that’

    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 12, 2013 at 10:14 am
    Leif has no alternative explanations.
    Your assertion is no explanation, just wishful thinking without evidence.

  212. Richard says:

    “Why an Ice Age Occurs Every 100,000 Years: Climate and Feedback Effects Explained”

    “Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. As researchers now demonstrate based on a computer simulation, not only do variations in insolation play a key role, but also the mutual influence of glaciated continents and climate.

    “Milankovitch’s idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle,” says Blatter. “However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately.”

    insolation, Sun, seems to be important, didnt read about the all important CO2

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807134127.htm

  213. Richard says:
    August 12, 2013 at 10:53 am
    insolation, Sun, seems to be important, didnt read about the all important CO2
    But be careful to get the story right. The changes in insolation were not due to changes of the Sun, but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.

  214. Richard says:

    “The changes in insolation were not due to changes of the Sun, but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.”

    Yes but seems to over ride CO2.

  215. HenryP says:

    Leif says
    but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.
    henry says
    interesting now, to see you have to agree with me that the planets do affect the climate on earth

  216. Richard says:

    PS “Science has struggled to explain fully why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years. ..While geologists and climate physicists found solid evidence of this 100,000-year cycle in glacial moraines, marine sediments and arctic ice, until now they were unable to find a plausible explanation for it.”

    Unable to find a plausible explanation? I thought climate scientists had explained everything and now all we had to do is to tax the west and shut down power plants to control the climate.

  217. HenryP says:
    August 12, 2013 at 11:05 am
    interesting now, to see you have to agree with me that the planets do affect the climate on earth
    ‘have to agree’ is nonsense. This has been known for decades and the influence is not what you think. I don’t think you have been peddling the Milankovitch theory. Amazing the contortions some people will go to.

  218. HenryP says:

    leif says.
    Amazing the contortions some people will go to.
    henry says
    ehhh.. (scratching) the few hairs left on my head0
    perhaps you could stop talking to yourself on this thread?

  219. HenryP says:
    August 12, 2013 at 11:14 am
    perhaps you could stop talking to yourself on this thread?
    I was talking about and to you. The Milankovitch theory has nothing to do with your ideas, and my mentioning the M theory is not ‘agreeing with’ you, and certainly not ‘having to’. My comment was about your false assertion that I come around ‘having to agree’ with your silly ideas.

  220. HenryP says:

    .
    leif says
    My comment was about your false assertion that I come around ‘having to agree’ with your silly ideas
    henry says
    you don’t have to agree with anything I say,
    in fact, please don’t
    the future will prove me right
    i was talking about you talking to your alter ego, Salvatore del Prete
    \
    it seems you don’t even know how to spell that name correctly
    (e.g. d cannot be a capital)
    as evident from previous post (Del=Dep)
    remember?

  221. HenryP says:
    August 12, 2013 at 11:33 am
    i was talking about you talking to your alter ego, Salvatore del Prete
    it seems you don’t even know how to spell that name correctly

    It seems that Salvatore does not know to spell his own name:
    Salvatore Del Prete says:
    August 12, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Perhaps he is not man enough to use his own real name…

  222. I spelled my name correctly. lol

  223. William Astley says:

    Leif, you appeared to be making inaccurate statements which is odd. You comment concerning the number of pores decreasing rather than increasing for solar cycle 24 is factually incorrect.

    Why are you making factually incorrect statements?

    W. LIVINGSTON AND M. PENN said Quote: “the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae”.

    You note the fact that in last 60 years as we are in grand solar maximum there are few pores. Pores are very common for solar cycle 24 which is what we are discussing.

    It is almost as if our comments are an attempt to distract attention away from the fact the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots in solar cycle 24 are decaying linearly. As Livingston and Penn note: ‘There are no sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength less than 1500 Gauss.’ Livingston and Penn’s analysis indicates the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots will be less than 1500 Gauss in 2015, hence no sunspots. “Sunspots are dark regions on the solar disk with magnetic field strengths greater than 1500 gauss (see Figure 1)”

    2009 EOS

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf

    “The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015.

    Yet although the Sun’s magnetic polarity has reversed and the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae (see Figure 1); in fact, nearly all of these features are seen only on flux magnetograms and are difficult to detect on whitelight images.”

    The numbered sunspot group lifetime is decreasing for solar cycle 24 and is significantly less than the number sunspot lifetime of solar cycle 23 and 24. The physical reason for this the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly.

  224. Richard says:

    Lief : “The changes in insolation were not due to changes of the Sun, but to the orbit and axis tilt of the Earth, brought about by gravitational perturbations by the planets, mainly Jupiter.”

    I read somewhere that the gravitational effect is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances.

    Thus Venus has about 58% of the gravitational effect on the Earth as Jupiter.

  225. Richard says:

    Rather that should be 71%

  226. Pamela Gray says:

    The gravitational pull of other planets contribute to a slowly developing physical tilt (wobble) which causes the Earth’s axil position to change (back and forth, thus the term “wobble”), shifting the area exposed to direct shortwave infrared radiation which causes climate shifts due to that tilt. The Sun again, remains relatively constant. Within this weather-pattern-variation-affecting slow oscillation from tilt to tilt, the global temperature demonstrates trends up, down, and stable. The discussion here focuses on the potential drives of these relatively short wiggles. I believe we can all agree on that.

    There are three suppositions: Solar influence from some kind of varying output agent (caused by whatever), complex oceanic/atmospheric overturning oscillations, or anthropogenic CO2 feedback mechanisms (primarily increased ability of a runaway more humid atmosphere preventing heat from escaping and then warming the oceans up because of more retained long-wave radiation getting absorbed into these oceans).

    Regarding shorter term temperature changes (as in less than 10,000 years), the single most powerful and variable (you need both) driver of climate shifts would be intrinsic to Earth, it being the number 1 candidate in terms of the necessary power and variability needed to drive and sustain weather pattern variation shifts. Until this source is understood and ruled out, it makes no sense at all to focus on teeny tiny drivers that at best can only be shown to “mathematically” affect a given temperature. Neither solar or CO2 enthusiasts bother themselves with the elephant in the room, believing instead that their pet gnat has filled the room with warm steaming piles of poop.

  227. HenryP says:

    henry@pamela
    ..but it does seem that the planets Saturn and Uranus are causing the switch?
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/10/denmark-gets-a-dose-of-global-cooling-in-major-newspaper/#comment-1387601

  228. milodonharlani says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 12, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    I feel that quasi-periodic D-O Cycles in glacial phases & Bond Cycles in the short interglacials are real & probably have similar or the same causes. Heinrich Events seem related as well. It appears to me that Earth’s climate during the Pleistocene glaciations has three stable modes, into & out of which it switches rapidly: interglacial, glacial & glacial maximum. These last on the order of tens of thousands of years, rather than the hundreds to thousands for their component cycles.

    IMO in all cases water modulates the orbital mechanical & solar effects (which could be great from small variations). Land, oceans & air are all different in glacial as opposed to interglacial phases. Ice, liquid water, clouds & water vapor in differing combinations look like major drivers, whether as GHG, shade, circulating medium or albedo reflective surface.

    But who knows, it some mysterious as yet unidentified forcing may drive the planet in & out of its phases. Instead of inventing GIGO models each scarier & more filled with special pleading than the last implicating CO2 & the magic gas alone, how about our spending more on actual climatic research, gathering & analyzing real data, instead of massaging questionable readings?

  229. milodonharlani says:

    Richard says:
    August 12, 2013 at 11:58 am

    I read somewhere that the gravitational effect is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances.

    ———————–

    But what do the models show?

  230. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 11:56 am
    Leif, you appeared to be making inaccurate statements which is odd. Your comment concerning the number of pores decreasing rather than increasing for solar cycle 24 is factually incorrect.
    First, as I point out you are not clear what you think a ‘pore’ is. My graph http://www.leif.org/research/Freq-small-groups.png shows that the frequency of groups type A, B, and A+B in cycle 24 is well below that of earlier cycles, and thus not anomalous.

    W. LIVINGSTON AND M. PENN said Quote: “the new solar cycle has been detected, most of the new cycle’s spots have been tiny “pores” without penumbrae”.
    And when did they say that, at the time of minimum where one usually doesn’t find large spots in any cycle. You appear to ignore that I work very closely with L&P.

    Pores are very common for solar cycle 24 which is what we are discussing.
    My graph http://www.leif.org/research shows that the frequency of [numbered, to boot] groups type A, B, and A+B in cycle 24 [which you may be calling pores] is well below that of earlier cycles.

    The numbered sunspot group lifetime is decreasing for solar cycle 24 and is significantly less than the number sunspot lifetime of solar cycle 23 and 24
    Contradicting yourself and where is the peer reviewed paper supporting your assertion?

    BTW, here you can see a pore http://www.specola.ch/drawings/2012/loc-d20120624.JPG marked ‘P’ near the center of the disk and not counted.

  231. William Astley says:

    As many are aware due to the climate war recent planetary temperature measures have been revised upward to hide the plateau of no warming. Similarly the sunspot count is getting some help to hide the decline. As it becomes more and more difficult to see sunspots and sunspot groups magnetic overlays are used to help keep the count up.

    The following is an interesting recent sunspot counting scheme change.

    http://www.solen.info/solar/presentations/ssn_workshop_tucson2013.pd
    Sunspots – image creation
    Using magnetic overlays greatly aids spot analysis both at the overview and detailed level (William: Yes it does and it helps to hide the fact that the number sunspot group is declining.)

    http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html

    Hiding the sunspot count decline of course does not affect, does not change what is physically is happening to the sun. Propagandists need to have a plan. The problem with hiding the decline of the numbered sun spot groups on the sun is there will be a sudden unexplained drop off in numbered sunspot groups when the scheme falls apart as there will be no sunspot groups to count.

    As the maximum magnetic field strength of a sunspot or pore is 1500 Gauss and the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is dropping linearly a point is reached when the decline in magnetic field strength results in less and less sunspots on the surface of the sun.

    We are now at the point in time where the magnetic field strength has declined sufficiently such that 50% of the new sunspots will not form which will result in a faster than normal drop off in numbered sunspots groups if the numbering scheme is not changed, rigged.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/Penn-Liv-Sval-ApJ.pdf

    During a roughly 11 year period, the number of sunspots seen on the solar disk shows a cyclic change. The current sunspot cycle (Cycle 24) has been strangely slow to develop, but even more strange is that infrared measurements of the central dark sunspot umbral regions have shown a decrease in the maximum magnetic field strength (with an associated temperature increase) since 1998 (Livingston 2002; Penn & Livingston 2006, 2011).

    These data also show that for even the smallest dark feature observed (i.e., a pore or a sunspot without any penumbra) the magnetic field strength is always greater than about 1500 G.

    Figure 3: …. for the period from 2012 to 2016, and about one-half of these magnetic fields will lie below the 1500Gspot formation threshold field strength.

  232. Robert W Turner says:

    This has probably been covered on WUWT but didn’t Levitus, 2012 profoundly adjust the ocean heat content data? It used to plateau after 2000 but now NOAA is showing it greatly increasing with little pause.

  233. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm
    As it becomes more and more difficult to see sunspots and sunspot groups magnetic overlays are used to help keep the count up.
    Complete nonsense. Sunspots and groups are counted [deliberately] with small telescopes, visually with no help from anything else.

    it helps to hide the fact that the number sunspot group is declining.
    Completely irrelevant as sunspots and groups are counted visually with small telescopes. What Jan does on his private website is not used by anybody but himself. And we have been stressing the fact that the group count is decreasing [and that there are fewer and fewer spots per group]. Don’t try to tell anybody that this is something you alone noticed. This is the subject of serious [and public] research.

    Hiding the sunspot count decline
    Nobody is hiding anything. You may benefit from the complete list of the sunspot workshop papers here: http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home everything is out in the open and the ~50 leading scientists participating is your guarantee for an unbiased, professional, and high-standard treatment of this issue.

    if the numbering scheme is not changed, rigged.
    There is no rigging of anything. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    even more strange is that infrared measurements of the central dark sunspot umbral regions have shown a decrease in the maximum magnetic field strength
    That is why we are asserting that the sun probably will enter a Maunder-type minimum where the sunspot number no longer is a useful measure of solar activity: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf

    But, generally, it is good to see that you are beginning to look at recent papers by respected scientists [like yours truly] , instead of keep trotting out the old hats.

  234. Ulric Lyons says:

    henry says:
    “Using CET only is a trap, because of the weather…. ”

    CET is the best temperature series in World for investigating the solar signal, because of the weather, which changes rapidly with solar forced changes of the AO/NAO. The response is always direct, unlike with the oceans.
    On your ideas:
    In isolation, Saturn-Uranus syzygies are a cold signal, they cannot be bipolar and know when to warm or to cool.

  235. William Astley says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 12, 2013 at 2:34 pm
    William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 2:14 pm
    As it becomes more and more difficult to see sunspots and sunspot groups magnetic overlays are used to help keep the count up.
    Complete nonsense. Sunspots and groups are counted [deliberately] with small telescopes, visually with no help from anything else.

    William:
    Yes, that is what is stated.

    If that is correct (no effort to hide the decline), then there should be the start of a significant drop in numbered sunspots.

    Figure 3: …. for the period from 2012 to 2016, and about one-half of these magnetic fields will lie below the 1500Gspot formation threshold field strength.

    Correct?

  236. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    If that is correct (no effort to hide the decline), then there should be the start of a significant drop in numbered sunspots.
    There is indeed such a drop [but the 'numbered' part is incorrect - spots are not numbered, groups are]. Each group now contains 30% fewer spots than in the past centuries.
    The sunspot number [and also F10.7 - a part of the flux comes from sunspots] are lower now than TSI and the number of CMEs would indicate, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SSN-F107-CMEs.png One interpretation of this is that the magnetic field [causing TSI and CMEs] is there but does not assemble into visible spots [that increase F10.7]. For what it is worth, I also believe that the lower SSN than expected is the reason for the SSN being a bit lower than my prediction [SSN pred = 72, while the number of groups = 6 is as predicted as well as the solar flux [=120]].

    Figure 3: …. for the period from 2012 to 2016, and about one-half of these magnetic fields will lie below the 1500Gspot formation threshold field strength.
    Down to one half may be too large a decrease, but there will be [I belive] an increasing discrepancy between the expected SSN and what we will see. I believe this happened during the Maunder Minimum [and all really Grand Minima - the Dalton does not qualify] and is the reason people back then hardly saw any spots while at the same time the magnetic field was strong enough to modulate the cosmic rays as strongly as today and to produce the ‘red flash’ [the chromosphere] visible during solar eclipses then. As Jack Eddy and Peter Foukal point out “the red flash implies that a significant level of solar magnetism must have existed even when very few spots were observed, during the latter [and deepest] part of the Maunder Minimum”. You can see my reasons for the above speculation here http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf There was no ‘interruption’ of the ‘solar magnetic cycle’, just a change [unknown why - but it is good to have some mysteries to ponder] in the process that assembles the magnetic field into visible spots. Now, all this may be too much for you to swallow, but is something you might want to think about.
    My ideas about this are, of course, speculation, but with some foundation, and will [and has already] be met with resistance from both extremes of the spectrum. Luckily, it appears [to use your favorite word] that these thing may come to pass [or not as the case may be] in a not too distant future [hopefully in one's lifetime] so are eminently testable.

  237. William Astley says:

    In reply to:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    August 12, 2013 at 6:10 pm
    William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm
    My ideas about this are, of course, speculation, but with some foundation, and will [and has already] be met with resistance from both extremes of the spectrum. Luckily, it appears [to use your favorite word] that these thing may come to pass [or not as the case may be] in a not too distant future [hopefully in one's lifetime] so are eminently testable.

    William:
    I agree. I find speculation and significant unresolved theoretical issues to be frustrating.

    There are sets upon sets of interesting issues and unresolved anomalies (effect or no effect on planetary temperature, depth of the minimum, speed of change, theoretical implications concerning the solar magnetic cycle and so on.) that may be resolved by the solar cycle 24 change.

    It will be interesting to watch this issue progress as more data is made available. The solar cycle 24 change data has the potential to lead to a significant scientific breakthrough.

  238. HenryP says:

    Ulric Lyons says
    CET is the best temperature series in World for investigating the solar signal, because of the weather, which changes rapidly with solar forced changes of the AO/NAO. The response is always direct, unlike with the oceans.
    On your ideas:
    In isolation, Saturn-Uranus syzygies are a cold signal, they cannot be bipolar and know when to warm or to cool.

    henry says
    After studying 47 weather stations (excluding CET),
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
    I found that for some odd reason, CET runs opposite the wave for its latitude, meaning that during a warming period (44 years) it gets less clouds and rain, so average temp. goes down. (GH effect)
    Apart from that, there is a lag, on the 88 wave.
    Apart from that you must / cannot not rely on one weather station to give you a global picture.

    IMHO, the Saturn-Uranus duo clearly shows the correlation of the 88 wave to be true,
    apparently causing the switch, with 4 quadrants of each 22 years, on average

    The 88 year Gleissberg weather cycle confirmed by me is also nothing new:
    It seems to me this 88 year solar/weather cycle was already calculated from COSMOGENIC ISOTOPES as related in this study:

    Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

    Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
    Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
    Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.

    end quote

    (the oft quoted 11 year solar cycle is only half of a full solar cycle)

  239. William Astley says:
    August 12, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    I find speculation and significant unresolved theoretical issues to be frustrating.
    Speculation is the lifeblood of science. You speculate, form a hypothesis, then test it: classical Scientific Method. Speculation based on a firm foundation is exciting. Speculation based on how you wish it to be is, indeed, a frustrating and wasteful business.

  240. Ulric Lyons says:

    HenryP says:
    “I found that for some odd reason, CET runs opposite the wave for its latitude, meaning that during a warming period (44 years) it gets less clouds and rain, so average temp. goes down. (GH effect)”

    When?
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Tmean/England.gif
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/17/Rainfall/England.gif

  241. HenryP says:

    @ulric
    look at CET maxima and compare with my a-c curve, try a 22 year running average,
    (as far back as you can go?)

    btw
    I found the correlation Saturn/Uranus 100%
    it is the switch that causes (the core of?) the sun to change sign
    I have updated my final report
    http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

    although “final”?

    I am continuously being amazed as to how nature has been put together.

  242. Ulric Lyons says:

    HenryP says:
    “look at CET maxima and compare with my a-c curve, try a 22 year running average,”

    Warming from the late 1970′s, the same as globally: http://snag.gy/YyqXf.jpg (CET 1900 to 2007)

  243. Ulric Lyons says:

    Ulric Lyons says:
    August 11, 2013 at 5:00 am

    “My latest research on sunspot cycle phase catastrophe’s every 110.7yrs on average, shows two cycles being affected at this node, with SC 25 maximum occurring in late 2027 to early 2028,”

    I have re-evaluated this, and now see good reason for SC25 sunspot maximum to be close to March 2025 to January 2026.

  244. @Scarface and others
    “water is most dense at 4°C” That number applies to fresh water. Sea water is somewhat different. Googleing would suggest that sea water is the most dense at -2°C, at which point it would freeze (at sea level presure (notable, the only place where sea water normaly will reach temperatures like that is in the polar regions, where the salinaty is less, causing the polar sea water to freeze at about -1.7°C)) Apparantly sea water acts more like normal liquides, and less like water. Still, warm (less dense) water is not going to be going down to the 2000m depth, the warm water will be up on top. The “missing” heat can’t hide down there.

Comments are closed.