An intriguing mystery – and a very speculative theory

Holdrens_new_nameGuest essay by Eric Worrall

John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Advisor, once tried to reframe the climate debate in terms of his prediction of  “global climate disruption”. Holdren stated at the time, that the term “global warming” is “a dangerous misnomer”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/the-morphology-of-global-warming/

The question – does John Holdren believe that “global climate disruption” might actually lead to global cooling? Is this why Holdren is unhappy with the term “global warming”? Is this the advice Holdren is giving to President Obama?

Because there is some very circumstantial evidence that America, and other governments, may already be planning ahead, for the possibility that the world will cool.

Over the last few years, a number of major Australian newspapers have posted stories about the rising issue of large scale foreign buyouts of Australian farmland.

For example:-
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/divisions-grow-in-govt-over-farm-buyouts/story-fni0xqi4-1226740170681
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australia-is-the-great-foreign-owned-land-as-more-nsw-farms-being-sold-overseas/story-e6freuzi-1226281573668

The big question is – why? Why would opaque Chinese and American companies, some of are believed to be government backed, be so interested in large scale ownership of Australian farmland, land which the IPCC and Australian CSIRO predict will shortly become worthless desert?
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/9/27/science-environment/warming-hit-home-australians-ipcc
The reason of course is the land will not shortly become worthless. The land may shortly become very valuable indeed.

Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

Their prediction is based on the historic correlation between solar cycles and global climate.

Humans have been aware of the 11 year climate cycle since the dawn of history – several good years followed by several bad years is a fact of life. But there are also other, longer, more powerful cycles, which have an even larger impact on global climate.
One of them is the 200 year cycle. Every 200 years or so, solar activity falls to a sustained low. These long periods of low activity, known by the names of the scientists who discovered them – Maunder, Dalton, etc. – coincided historically with periods of extreme cold – plummeting global temperatures, crashing food production, and drastically shorter and less reliable growing seasons in the Northern Hemisphere.

At the peak of the cold periods, history records widespread famines and other disasters, such as the Year Without a Summer in 1816, a food production catastrophe triggered by low solar activity during the Dalton Minimum, combining with an unusually severe series of major volcanic eruptions. In the Year without a Summer, over vast areas, crops in the Northern hemisphere were destroyed by snow and frost in mid Summer, which created global famine and social unrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

If the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the world is on the brink of a new cold period, which will start to bite in the next few years.

We could even see another year without a summer – there are several large volcanoes which are overdue for major eruptions, such as Katla in Iceland and Merapi in Indonesia. When they erupt, they shall add to downward pressure on global temperatures.

Given the risk, what could a nation whose grain belt is vulnerable to global cooling do, to protect its future food supply?

The obviously solution is to buy up farmland in another country.
A country which is warm enough, so that even if global temperatures fall significantly, the land they purchased would remain highly productive. A country with a strong tradition of respect for the rule of law. A country which would continue to respect the rule of law, even in the face of a global catastrophe.

A country like Australia.

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

Note: They key word in the title is “very speculative”, but I thought it was an interesting question. It may also simply be part of China’s economic expansion, which we have also witnessed in the USA with them buying up properties. – Anthony

About these ads

173 thoughts on “An intriguing mystery – and a very speculative theory

  1. Ater Holdren’s embarrasingly srtupid remarks about polar vortices, I think it’s safe to assume
    anything he says would only be of interest to a clinical psychologist, not a climate scientist.

  2. In foreign relations usa plays poker [bluff], uk plays bridge [contracts], russia plays chess [attrition] and china plays Go [surround].

    China plays Go so seeks to capture the board through subtle acquisitions rather than projection of force. So they go round buying up access to natural resources around the world regardless of the regime [see africa]. To defend these acquisitions they are building a fleet.

    While others invade to get rich china buys strategic assets and political submission follows e.g this winter cameron sold uk foreign policy and was publicly humiliated in the process in the Chinese press that called the uk economy nothing but a theme park that was ok for tourists. Uk F.O now says nothing on tibet, taiwan, japanese islands

  3. If the Russian Academy of Science is correct, the world is on the brink of a new cold period, which will start to bite in the next few years.
    Unfortunately for them [and fortunately for us] there is good evidence that they are not correct: http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png
    TSI has not declined as predicted as the thin blue curve shows (after allowance for the 4.8 W/m2 offset the older dataset had).

  4. The author writes: “the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling”

    But the link goes to a story describing a statement by a single scientist, not by the Academy.

  5. Holdren is a mindless zombie who simply parrots words that political consultants tell him polled well among the hardcore leftist base on the overnight survey. (they don’t think anyone who doesn’t already agree with them is worth talking to or even listening to, so they never try, and just assume everything will work out in November.) If you think there is anything more to what he, or anyone in this administration says or does, you are sadly mistaken.

  6. Bet it has something to do with his mentor, Paul Ehrlich, partnering with the Institute of Technology in Sydney to push the MAHB’s work. http://sustainabilitycentral.wordpress.com/gallery/

    MAHB–Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior. Devoted to cultural evolution. Also an area of interest to Holdren, which is why the League of Innovative Schools initiative reports to his office.

  7. I think Holdren observed that global warming is a dangerous misnomer to get around the pause that’s killing the cause.

    Governments and their agencies are notoriously bad at forecasting anything with accuracy, including the economy. In fact, their forecasts are the most reliable contrary indicators I know of. One obvious example: Want to know when to sell your gold? Wait for central banks to start buying.

  8. David Friedman says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:19 am
    The author writes: “the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling”
    But the link goes to a story describing a statement by a single scientist, not by the Academy.

    This is no different from when people here on this blog say that Hathaway’s private solar cycle forecast is that of NASA’s. Appealing to authority is an often used crutch when the argument is otherwise weak.

  9. ¡Wow! That lead post is a bridge speculation too far. Way, way, way too far.

    The embarrassing caliber of the lead post speculation is equal to a kooky bizarre speculation that secret interplanetary humanoid civilizations are taking over Australian farmlands for breeding themselves because their home planets are dying.

    John

  10. Is this why Holdren is unhappy with the term “global warming”?

    No, It is because global warming is not happening.

  11. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:18 am

    Regarding your figure, why would the bicentennial component have to be so tightly tied to the 11 year cycle? In other words, why should the teeth line up? What if the decline in TSI is out of phase by 5 years? Then we could still be on track for the cooling prediction.

  12. Let us remember that in the 1980s it was Japan that was purported to be buying up properties and businesses in the US, and with with the Japanese preeminence and labor model, soon we’d all be “turning Japanese, I think I’m turning Japanese. I really think so.” Where is that today? And, despite the perception of that era that it was Japan that was the major purchaser, in reality it was England. I had the misfortune of working for a US based company that was purchased by a Scottish concern.

    Moreover, the Art Deco period Chicago Skyway happened to be purchased by Australian investors a few years back. And the majority of those red light camera ticketing machines (that became popular with municipal governments in the US) are owned and operated by an Australian concern. Maybe US purchases of Australian properties is tit-for-tat?

  13. Hoser says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:49 am
    Regarding your figure, why would the bicentennial component have to be so tightly tied to the 11 year cycle? In other words, why should the teeth line up? What if the decline in TSI is out of phase by 5 years? Then we could still be on track for the cooling prediction.
    Then it is no longer prediction, but just alarmist speculation.

  14. A country which would continue to respect the rule of law, even in the face of a global catastrophe.

    A country like Australia.

    I’ve seen Mad Max, you can’t fool me.

  15. The problem with other countries buying land is more warmer climes is that the country that has the land controls the export.

  16. Farmland better investment than Ghost Cities
    Chinese may now begin to realize that investing in China’s Ghost Cities will be a major loss with little return.
    Consequently, farmland or land that could become farmland will provide greater security.

  17. No matter what the climate might be, the United Nations System, through Agenda 21, is determined to create global government. Already in place is a system, seen through UN activities of the International Council of Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) that promotes state management and/or ownership of land. Through conservation authorities and other organizations with environmentally friendly sounding names, private land is redefined as heritage land or wild lands or wet lands. And through truly wily means, the agents convince the state either to take the land away or to allow owners to keep the land and keep paying taxes on it. Either way, the state dictates how the land can or cannot be used. When rich agricultural land cannot be used to produce food and wood lots must not be touched, owners lose their livelihoods and consumers lose their source of food. The UN system is well advanced in Australia (as it is in America and Canada) so I wonder how smart it is of the Chinese and Americans to buy up land anywhere.

  18. In a world with a growing population that is also industrializing (and not about to give up fossil-fuels) then to some it might look like a better long term investment than US T-bonds.

    There may be other reasons.

  19. “Back in 2006, the Russian Academy of Science predicted imminent severe global cooling, beginning in 2012-2015, peaking at around 2055.”

    http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

    So where is this “prediction” ? That’s just some waffle about 200 year cycles. No data not even any graphics.

    There may be something behind it, so if you are going to put if forward for consideration, post a proper link. I’ve seem more than enough unfounded speculative shite about climate. Whether warns of warming of cooling is irrelevant until There’s something to back it up.

    As for the land grab , that Chinese are buying everything they can get their hands on, probably trying to get something more solid than US dollars before the currency goes down the tubes and leaves them with nothing to show for all the US debt they’ve been stacking up for the last 20 years.

    They simply have too much US currency to sell it without pulling the rug from the market and destroying the value of what remains. Finding some other poor fools, with their economy in ruins, prepared to accept USD in exchange for their national heritage and family silver seems a pretty smart way out.

  20. The thing is, the climate is a highly nonlinear system with self-organized internal metastructure driven by the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy. Many, many of the responses of the system to warming are to initiate localized structures that are more efficient at cooling than a “passive, ideal” atmosphere. For example, thunderstorms happen when heated land creates local updrafts (local low pressure centers) and inflowing air causes evaporative cooling of the soil and waterways beneath and carries the latent heat aloft, through most of the greenhouse layer. The thunderstorm clouds also have a high albedo and reflect a lot of the incoming sunlight that otherwise would have just heated the surface underneath. These dissipative structures exist on every scale from “dust devils” a few meters across that appear on hot days to the major decadal oscillations, Hadley cells, global circulation patterns of the jet stream. In all cases they are driven by differential heating (temperature differences) and in most cases they are driven to more efficient heat loss by larger temperature gradients or an increase in the driving of the system. Exceptions exist — blocking highs can actually interrupt dissipation for a time, and ENSO has a very odd pattern of heating and cooling (that might still be a part of this general phenomenon).

    It isn’t just the atmosphere. The thermohaline circulation, a.k.a. “The Oceanic Conveyor Belt” has an enormously complex structure shaped by the continents themselves, by localized heating and cooling, mixing and segregation of oceanic currents as they move vast amounts of seawater on a centuries-long journey around the globe. This circulation is a dominant factor in global climate. Small changes can isolate the arctic from the delivery of tropical heat, causing the arctic to cool and the tropics to warm. Small changes can divert much of Europe from the delivery of tropical heat, and along the way plunge it into a deep freeze and alter its rainfall patterns catastrophically.

    We really have very little idea what the thermohaline circulation is likely to do as the decadal oscillations e.g. change phase, as even small changes in insolation take effect, as feedbacks in the nonlinear system reinforce certain modes of heat redistribution and diminish others. The GCMs do not have the granularity necessary to track the smaller dissipative structures at all, and many of them treat the ocean as a single layer with known behavior, not as a part of a multilayer coupled system. This is all part and parcel with the difficulty in e.g. predicting ENSO events more than a few months ahead of time, more on the basis of observing known precursors as they start to emerge than on our ability to actually integrate any sort of dynamical model accurately into the future.

    We do not know what caused the MWP, the LIA, or the post LIA recovery. We can be pretty sure that the MWP was not caused by CO_2, and that the LIA was not caused by aerosols — human activitiy at the time was almost certainly irrelevant to both phenomena. We cannot hindcast those events with an explanatory model that doesn’t simply beg the question of the cause. We cannot even hindcast the actual thermometric surface temperature record with anything like accuracy over its range, not one model at a time, not collectively.

    It is, actually, entirely possible that a brief warming spell driven by CO_2 could trigger another descent into glaciation or near-glaciation. There are hypotheses (very, very tentative ones) that can even provide possible mechanisms — Greenland actually DOES start to melt, this dumps lots of cold freshwater into the arctic ocean, which interrupts the thermohaline circulation in the bight that currently carries warm(er), salty, tropical water into the arctic. The arctic promptly refreezes, the Gulf Stream diverts generically a few degrees south, northern Europe and Russia/Siberia and possibly Canada all drop rapidly in temperature and the tropics get warmer as the mode that is currently cooling them is partially interrupted.

    This would actually have a mixed effect as far as global averages are concerned. Since radiative losses are proportional to T^4, warming the equatorial 50% of the surface area by 1 degree is more efficient at increasing heat loss than warming the entire globe by 1/2 a degree. However, in the equatorial band, latent heat from the oceans is probably a much more important factor and a small change in equatorial band temperature would probably very rapidly increase water-cycle cooling efficiency to compensate. The Earth might warm, it might actually cool if the new circulation pattern were stable and was more efficient at cooling. None other than Hansen himself talks about this possibility (trying to sell the idea of more violent storms once Greenland starts to melt) and it is quite true that with a marginally warmer arctic and little change in equatorial temperatures in the NH, there may well have been fewer violent storms although all such claims are lost in statistical noise in the data. It is also closely related to a hypothesis for the cause of the Younger Dryas.

    We know that the Earth can enter glacial eras with high CO_2. Alterations to oceanic circulation when the gap linking the Atlantic to the Pacific closed and became the isthmus of Panama triggered the Pliestocene ice age, which we are still in. We know that phenomena with mundane, non-geological timescales can have sudden, profound effects on the climate — bursts of global warming and cooling by many degrees C over decades to a century or two are commonplace in the proxy-based climate record. During interglacials, there are clearly evident spikes as temperatures rocket up by 1-2 C for an interval of a century or two, then drop, often subsequently ending the interglacial and plunging the Earth rapidly back into glaciation. We cannot model, predict, or even really understand any of this behavior — at best we can assert unprovable hypotheses. The moral of the story, however, is that the Earth’s climate is at least bistable if not overtly multistable, with entire families of local attractors distributed throughout “warm phase” and “cold phase” regimes.

    Metaphorically, a brief fever could indeed make the Earth catch cold. Or, of course, it could rocket up. Or go away.

    All things being equal, it is probably wiser to minimize our exposure on this front and continue to work on a long term plan to get off of carbon based fuels (for a variety of reasons, not just this one). In the short run, however, one has to be strongly driven by evidence when trying to formulate a feasible public policy. Carbon trading is pointless and serves only to enrich carbon traders. Placing onerous surcharges, taxes, levies, and so on on carbon based energy only bumps energy prices in an inelastic market while having a nearly irrelevant impact on global CO_2 levels. The people that suffer the most from this are, as always, the poorest people in the world, making amelioration measures an ongoing economic catastrophe right now.

    In 20-40 years, a variety of technologies that could replace carbon based energy could — and really should — mature. Fission, both Uranium and Thorium based, should provide a thousand-year base for global energy while we continue to work on things like fusion that are proving very difficult to crack. Solar power is already at “break even” without subsidy in many locations, an economically feasible way to supplement and eke out all other energy resources with an acceptable, if not actually attractive, amortization time on the original investment. Novel technologies are being studied, and a breakthrough in e.g. battery technology could be a game changer for many of the intermittent non-carbon sources.

    In the meantime, there is little point in panicking, investing trillions of dollars in measures unlikely to have much impact even if they work as planned, at a time when the actual data suggests that the climate models that predict catastrophe are failing to predict the climate at a level that threatens to undermine the entire rationale for the expenditure of the bulk of the disposable income of an entire civilization for close to a century.

    rgb

  21. I like it:

    jauntycyclist says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:18 am
    In foreign relations usa plays poker [bluff], uk plays bridge [contracts], russia plays chess [attrition] and china plays Go [surround].

    Obama plays a newly-invented game whose rules only he knows. It’s called “Reset”.

  22. “Reset” has a very simple game console with only one button on it. No one knows quite what it’s for, and, to make things interesting the button is often broken, and you never know when, so it puts everybody on a genuinely egalitarian footing… (?)

  23. This is really out of proportion to fail to distinguish the two hundred year fluctuations from the 1400 year low those minima took place during! Let us not fear monger about cold climate!

  24. lsvalgaard says
    unfortunately for them [and fortunately for us] there is good evidence that they are not correct: http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png
    TSI has not declined as predicted as the thin blue curve shows (after allowance for the 4.8 W/m2 offset the older dataset had).
    Henry says
    (quote from wikipedia)
    Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era, although the small fraction in ultra-violet light has recently been found to vary significantly more than previously thought over the course of a solar cycle
    end quote
    if Svalgaard were right, then why have we started to cool globally?

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

    It is the amount of UV coming through the atmosphere that is getting smaller (in a cooling period) and this has to do with a variation within TSI,
    Apparently this variation does not (seemingly) affect TSI much in absolute values,
    it is like a tiny re-distribution of the TSI curve….

  25. lsvalgaard
    This year’s winter in North America attests to the fact that the circulation can be a problem for agriculture and decrease the intensity of the magnetic field leads to dramatic changes in the circulation. Solar field continues unabated.

  26. After the past winter in U.S., it seems obligatory, at some point, to compile a list of “excess mortalities” due to cold. I don’t find current (2014( data at Centers for Disease (National Vital Statistics). Maybe someone else knows where to look, and can link. Googling variations on “2014 deaths from cold” gives some sense of how bad this winter was, and it’s a grim actuarial task to decide what constitutes a mortality from cold weather. But the totals need to reflect ALL the deaths, from accidents on a snow-slick road to alcohol-related exposure. This is the game warmists play, and they have no compunctions about attributing a heart failure in a hot apartment to global warming.

  27. Stephen Richards says: “The problem with other countries buying land is more warmer climes is that the country that has the land controls the export.”
    I agree, I also think that if Australia prevented the grain being exported then this would be a good excuse for an invasion, with retaliation by Australia of either scorched earth or sending the army in to harvest it and feed their own people.
    This is one of the reasons why I think the whole thing is too speculative, the other being that I think the term “Global Climate Disruption” sounds more apocalyptic than the “Climate Change” which was used when “Global Warming” clearly wasn’t happening.
    It is a natural evolution of the Big Lie!

  28. RGB says : Carbon trading is pointless and serves only to enrich carbon traders.

    On that’s what all this is about since the Stern report. Before that politicians avoided ‘green’ like the plague, then Stern suggested they could turn it into a new form of consumerism. Then banking crisis hit.

    Subsidies for solar PV are nothing to do with “saving the planet” and all about “saving the banks”.

    If you have a solar installation you have a 20 year revenue source. If you have revenue source, a bank can lend you money. Money that it does not even have, and then get you to pay it back twice over.

    energy gets dearer, everyone takes a hit and the banks get to pay off some of their casino debts.

  29. Bill Parsons: Obama plays a newly-invented game whose rules only he knows. It’s called “Reset”.

    No, it was a mistranslation. The button actually reads “overload” except that Clinton goofed it.

  30. Raw land area is one of just two inherently restricted resources, for which expanded reproduction is impossible, even with truly advanced technology.

    The other one is span of human attention, which, since the decline of slavery, can’t be owned by others, only rented for a limited time (see employee) or tricked into temporary submission (see ads).

    Therefore land is the best long term investment.

    Energy, contrary to widespread subterfuge, is abundant. In each ton of ordinary granite rock there is the energy of 50 tons of coal in the form of fissionable radioisotopes. It is only a matter of technology to extract it safely.

    Also, there is this huge gravitational fusion plant nearby and we don’t even know how to turn it off. With the proper technology radiative energy from it can be captured cheaply, stored in non toxic, non flammable chemicals like sugar and released on demand. The cycle is already working on a large scale for billions of years using God’s nanotechnology. We ourselves are not quite there yet, but getting close. The only caveat is average flux density on terrestrial surface is low, which brings us back to land area as a precious resource.

    With enough cheap energy all raw materials are overabundant, because the thermodynamic limit to free energy required to extract a rare constituent is only proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. Again, it is only a matter of technology to get close to the limit.

    So it is not about expectations related to climate, it is pure technological optimism. Land is simply the only resource that can be owned and for which demand is inevitably going to exceed supply in the long run.

    Lots of land is purchased by investors in Canada as well, which is not the hottest place on Earth.

  31. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:18 am

    “Unfortunately for them [and fortunately for us] there is good evidence that they are not correct: http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png
    TSI has not declined as predicted as the thin blue curve shows (after allowance for the 4.8 W/m2 offset the older dataset had).”

    Straw-man Leif strikes again, UV and X-ray have been declining. There is a possibility of the climate cooling and an equal possibility that it will warm.

  32. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Appealing to authority is an often used crutch when the argument is otherwise weak.

    Far be it from me to point out (gently) that you frequently quote your own website, but maybe you may wish to consider whether you consider yourself to be an authority …

    For the avoidance of doubt, as a general rule I DO consider you to be pretty good on this science stuff, but humility is no bad thing.

    I speak as a retired former railway engineer who is glad to proclaim that he does not write any form of pornography. I’m just this guy, you know …

  33. This theory is right out there in Lewandowsky land. The Chinese don’t need exotic reasons to buy outback land. In case you haven’t noticed, the Chinese are buying pretty much every real asset outside China that they can get their hands on at the moment to try to close the loop on their embarrasingly large trade surplus and stop their currency from inflating. They buy outback farms for the same reason they buy everything else; they are real assets, they are not in China and they are for sale.

  34. Sparks says
    Straw-man Leif strikes again, UV and X-ray have been declining. There is a possibility of the climate cooling and an equal possibility that it will warm.
    Henry says
    Have you got some figures on that decline?
    I know global cooling has already started

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/an-intriguing-mystery-and-a-very-speculative-theory/#comment-1606416

    Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the E-UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.

  35. HF Radio propagation relies directly upon ionization of the upper atmosphere by the sun.

    So why, if the sun is so stable, is HF radio propagation so unstable year to year, decade to decade?

    Could it be that only some measurements of the sun are stable, while others are not?

    Thus, when it is suggested that the Sun cannot be affecting climate because it is so stable, could it be that this is a case of selective cherry picking?

  36. HenryP says:
    April 5, 2014 at 10:50 am
    It is the amount of UV coming through the atmosphere that is getting smaller (in a cooling period) and this has to do with a variation within TSI,
    Somebody forgot to tell the Sun. Here is a plot of the Mg II index which measures the UV flux

    The latest data for 2014 are not on the plot, but with the recent increase in solar activity run as high as in SC23. No downward trend the last 17 years….

  37. HenryP says:
    April 5, 2014 at 11:49 am

    “Straw-man Leif strikes again, UV and X-ray have been declining.”

    Henry says
    Have you got some figures on that decline?

    I’ll refer your question to Leif he’s the expert on talking big fiery balls. :)

  38. ferd berple says:
    April 5, 2014 at 11:54 am
    HF Radio propagation relies directly upon ionization of the upper atmosphere by the sun.
    So why, if the sun is so stable, is HF radio propagation so unstable year to year, decade to decade?

    Simply because the ionosphere is like a thin tail on a large dog. As the dog wags its tail, the center of gravity of the dog varies, but, oh, so little.

  39. If it does get cold, Europe is going to be in a world of hurt. They are already having excess deaths in the winter because they have driven the cost of power so high.

  40. Sparks says:
    April 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm
    I’ve compared SC23 with SC24, UV and X-ray are down in comparison!
    Not any more than if it followed TSI or the sunspot number:

    So, the idea that UV varies independently form TSI does not hold water.

  41. HenryP says:
    April 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    I was talking about what is measured at sea level?
    do we have some measurement of UV measured at sealevel?

    The active part of UV does not reach sea level…

  42. “lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Appealing to authority is an often used crutch when the argument is otherwise weak.”

    WOW… I am totally and utterly amazed to see you write that. That has been the absolute MAIN selling point the warmists have been using on the public over the past two decades trying to convince them that CAGW is real. How many times have we heard “97%” and “ALL the worlds scientific academies blah blah blah…” I Am glad you concede that the CAGW hypothesis is indeed weak.

  43. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    “…come back with your quantitative physical theory that connects the two.”

    So a politically adjusted global temperature anomaly backs up your position… interesting!

  44. I met Holdren at the NAE Grand Challenges Summit in Chicago in 2010, here are his slides discussing his concept of “climate disruption”:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf

    His theory is that increasing temperature will cause severe disruption in weather patterns, and that sometimes, this will result in transient cold weather in some regions. However, his overall message is that global temperatures will increase. It is worth reading to see where he is coming from = “weather weirding.”

  45. This article, and the one about state government climate reports, are not of the quality for which WUWT has been rightly respected for many years. I sincerely hope they are exceptions and not the new typical.
    These posts make me wonder about the concept of skeptics snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

  46. rgbatduke says:
    April 5, 2014 at 10:31 am
    We do not know what caused the MWP, the LIA, or the post LIA recovery. We can be pretty sure that the MWP was not caused by CO_2, and that the LIA was not caused by aerosols — human activitiy at the time was almost certainly irrelevant to both phenomena. We cannot hindcast those events with an explanatory model that doesn’t simply beg the question of the cause. We cannot even hindcast the actual thermometric surface temperature record with anything like accuracy over its range, not one model at a time, not collectively.

    An excellent summary, but situation may not be as hopeless as it might appear.
    Leohle’s is one of the better reconstructions of the millennial global temperature anomaly, by no means accurate, but still has both the MWP and the LIA that appear to be reasonable.
    One proxy (just a conjecture at this time) that agrees well with the Loehle’s reconstruction is the decadal change in the Arctic-far North Atlantic geomagnetic field.

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

    Recently Steinhilber reconstructed temperature change spectrum from the Dongge cave stalagmites, China, and as it happens it also closely matches the geopolar magnetic dipole spectrum at centenary scale (see link above).
    Yes, just a conjecture, but the NASA’s JPL scientist Dr. J. Dickey is of the opinion that may be more to it than pure speculation: “One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding ……etc” see the above link for the NASA’s article.

  47. “Holdren is a mindless zombie who simply parrots words that political consultants tell him polled well among the hardcore leftist base on the overnight survey. (they don’t think anyone who doesn’t already agree with them is worth talking to or even listening to, so they never try, and just assume everything will work out in November.) If you think there is anything more to what he, or anyone in this administration says or does, you are sadly mistaken.”
    I think you are somewhat wrong about this. Holdren is not the problem. He is just the symptom of a problem. And the problem is a lot of interest, ideologies and etc.. that just don’t fit into today’s World and is desperate to change it to suit their needs?

  48. HenryP says:
    April 5, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    you did not get it. but, please do explain the reason for the cooling?
    You seem to be the expert, so let us hear it.

    Sparks says:
    April 5, 2014 at 1:06 pm
    So a politically adjusted global temperature anomaly backs up your position… interesting!
    You mean an anomaly that has been adjusted to show warming at all?

  49. ‘The big question is – why? Why would opaque Chinese and American companies, some of are believed to be government backed, be so interested in large scale ownership of Australian farmland, land which the IPCC and Australian CSIRO predict will shortly become worthless desert?’

    Back in the 80′s the CSIRO was predicting global warming would be good for Australia.
    The prediction was that the Eastern wheat belt would expand by 100 km and the Western wheat belt would diminish as WA became drier.
    The USA wheat production would fall due to drying conditions.
    Therefore global warming was good for Australia.
    Therefore we need not do anything about it.
    The mechanism was not known, but was probably aligned with sunspots and we could not do anything anyway.
    The USA had not yet worked this out .

    My POV only is that the Chinese at least don’t think any threats from global warming, as it affects them, cannot be offset by mitigation, growth, and economic colonialization.
    They , after the melanine deaths of thousands of their children,are looking for secure, healthy milk supply.
    Australia is a good place to invest in as it has a stable currency and the rule of law.
    The USA has always invested in Australia.
    Despite reports that China is our biggest trading partner, the USA eclipses them if you include credit cards and banking in the mix.
    The USA always looks for a real compound return of at least 12%.
    When it does not get that return it pumps up the industry and spins it off.
    Historically the Texans sold Rotolacter, as did Pfizer their Agriculture portfolio recently .
    What happened to the British investors in agricultural land in the 60′s and 70′s may be the fate of the Americans.
    When we get a good long drought they wait for a wet season and sell at a loss.

  50. Subsidies for solar PV are nothing to do with “saving the planet” and all about “saving the banks”.

    If you have a solar installation you have a 20 year revenue source. If you have revenue source, a bank can lend you money. Money that it does not even have, and then get you to pay it back twice over.

    energy gets dearer, everyone takes a hit and the banks get to pay off some of their casino debts.

    Well, banks and energy companies in general and solar cells producers and…

    Even without subsidy, putting solar PV on my house (even in NC where energy is relatively cheap) is break even to win a bit, amortized over 15 years. The 20 year ROI is roughly equivalent to what one might realize with high efficiency heat/AC, high efficiency low-E windows, and cone head insulation in the roof. Sadly, my house got all of the previous treatments first (out of necessity — replacing the cheap-ass furnaces that were original equipment, the cheap-ass windows ditto, along the way). That dropped my energy bill by a factor of 2 (on a 15-20 year amortization of the cost of all the new hardware). My problem with solar now is marginal gain. I only pay out $160/month (equalized) for electricity, plus a chunk for natural gas. That means that even if I dropped my electrical bill to zero, I realize at most around $2000/year to use to service debt. If I borrow $20,000 to install solar PV, it will be every bit of 15 to 20 years to break even on the cost of the money. If I actually produce more electricity than I use (unlikely) I could knock some years off of that, but it isn’t terribly attractive as things stand.

    It’s better for new construction — that simply reduces the cost of owning/buying the home (rolling the cost into the original mortgage but realizing energy savings for 20+ years that more than subsidize the cost of the money).

    It is actually better as an investment than as a debt-financed operation. If I had $20,000 lying around, and used it to buy solar PV for my house and thereby reduced my energy cost outflow by $2000/year, that would be a 10% ROI which in today’s market isn’t too shabby. Borrowing the money just means somebody else (the lender) reaps the bulk of the benefit. Government subsidy simply shifts the personally realizable margins around a bit so that I can reduce the borrowed money outlay (or get “free money” to add to a personal investment) and again, knock a few years off the amortization and improve ROI.

    So either way I benefit to break even. My power company benefits as they don’t have to build new power plants as fast in order to cover summertime AC-linked brownout in a growing population. The banks/finance companies benefit because they get to loan money and service the loans. Drug dealers seeking to launder money benefit as they put their money into banks to be loaned. Solar energy companies benefit as they make money. Their employees benefit from having jobs. China benefits from selling the solar cells. The world benefits from not burning through irreplaceable fossil fuels that would be worth far more as chemical feedstock in 100 years than they are now as fuel.

    The only real problem is that I don’t benefit enough, and I don’t have $20,000 lying around at the moment and would have to borrow it. The cost of solar is generally decreasing, and in five years I’m guessing that it will have dropped to where it is a no-brainer to put solar on the house whether or not I use borrowed money or my own (with the greater return in the latter case). Given efficiencies and economy of scale, a fair number of NC farmers are finding it worthwhile to transform their tobacco or cotton fields into solar farms — buying at that scale already permits one to drop overall cost per watt to where the amortization is completed in less than a decade.

    That’s really part of my beef. I’m not contemplating solar on my house to save the world, because I am not convinced it needs saving. I’m contemplating solar on my house because it is a decent investment, just as were my high-efficiency furnaces. My house is easily $2000-3000/year cheaper to run than it was with the old furnaces, cheap windows, etc, and I’ll recover a bunch of the capital investment if/when I sell on top of that as I sell the savings to the next owners. In the next couple of decades, the economics of doing this will be overwhelming — reasonably efficient solar cells are (IMO) likely to go down to less than $0.25/watt within 20 years, and the electronics required to use them efficiently are getting cheaper as well. There isn’t any need for carbon trading to make that happen, and very little that the government does (but fund research into better solar technology) will make it go faster or slower than it already is.

    The same thing is true for things like improved batteries — everybody knows there are billions on the table for better batteries. There is fame, fortune, nobel prizes for the inventor of a high-energy density super battery, especially one that can be mass produced cheaply without using e.g. rare earths or exotic, toxic and scarce elements. There is DOE money for people working on them. There is NSF money, NASA money, corporate money, and private money. There are non-battery ideas that might eventually prove to be cost-effective. Carbon trading and panic won’t make the search go any faster, but the day that somebody perfects e.g. a zinc-oxide battery that is rechargeable 1000 times without significant degradation and that can hold energy at anything like the energy density of gasoline, the battery will be put to immediate use in a dozen venues all of which will drop fossil fuel consumption — buffering large scale solar, electric cars, b uffering non solar resources (just as important for keeping the costs of building new plants down) and hey, maybe we can build a laptop that actually runs for days per charge instead of hours per charge…

    We have learned nothing from the incredible discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. People always make predictions as if the technology and economy they had yesterday is the technology that will be dominant in 20 years, and then wonder why catastrophic predictions made on the basis of that technology or economy fail. The population bomb was defused by the green revolution. Widespread stories of “the end of oil” proved premature. The cold war continued right up to the day it more or less abruptly ended. My cell phone would have been classified as an “armament” by the US government a mere twenty years ago, and my laptop would have been worth a billion dollars twenty five years ago — people would have killed to possess it, governments would have fought wars to keep it out of “the wrong hands” with its dual core gigaflop scale CPUs, its terabyte scale storage, its gigabytes of RAM, its uber-fast network.

    In twenty years we may have stopped burning energy that is currently being utterly wasted. Smart lights that only turn on when there is somebody there to use the light. AC that knows when you are home and adjusts accordingly. A smart energy grid. LED based light instead of hot filament based light. Cars that store and recover most of their kinetic energy when braking. We don’t really need additional incentive to develop these things — energy is expensive and is the fundamental scarce resource so it is always going to be to our advantage to make it as cheap as possible to enable us to accomplish “anything”. We won’t do it to avoid the spectre of an ill-defined global catastrophe. We’ll do it for the same reason we do many things — to make money, or spend less money, so we have more money to use on the things we want to use money for.

    No idea, no technology before its time, to be sure, but understand — the technologies that will be available in twenty years are hardly imaginable today! At least if the future is anything like the present or the past. Not even (most) science fiction authors foresaw the internet. I’ve been a computer geek more or less my whole life, but have had a hard time seeing more than five years into the future of computing along the way (and five years is a lot, in the computing business!).

    Here is one lesson I learned, repeatedly, the hard way, from computing. If what you want to do is barely possible, at enormous expense, today, just wait. In a year, two years, ten years, you can do it cheaply. I’ve run code at enormous expense and difficulty on supercomputers or huge distributed parallel compute clusters — back in the 90′s — that my current aging laptop could complete in half the time. Cars that once upon a time were lucky to come with a seat belt now come with seat belts with shoulder harnesses, air bags, antilock brakes and positraction systems, and more. Central air furnaces used to be 30-50% efficient — most of the energy you bought went straight up the flue. My furnaces now are between 90 and 95% efficient — their exhaust is barely warm, and most of the energy I buy to heat my home ends up in my house and stays there for much longer.

    I don’t know, precisely, how things will change to defeat CAGW if the hypothesis proves to be true and the climate eventually shows signs of continuing heating at a rate that might be catastrophic. I do, however, have a lot of faith that technologies that we can barely imagine today will render the whole question moot long before we reach any sort of catastrophic point if the hypothesis itself isn’t just plain false. Those technologies will all be sensible things to pursue independent of the possibility of catastrophe and need no further motivation than the enrichment of their developers (including e.g. the US government and people as funded by public money) to happen. I’m all for research. Not so much for subsidy of immature technologies to somebody’s direct enrichment when that somebody is not me.

  51. A lot of people here get very upset when foreigners buy up our property. They do not understand economics. I say welcome to Oz! Bring dollars!

    The fact is you will end up selling it back to us at a loss. Ask the Japanese.

  52. And now why would but desert land in Australia? They got the GOBI if they want to use that for food? And the Sahara would be a lot cheaper.and @Samuell re Europe, there would be lot less hurt if the Brits for example restart their Coal industry both for direct heating in homes to producing cheaper power and allow fracking for gas!

  53. Isn’t the latest meme “Global Extreme Weather Change”? Hard to keep track, since they change it so often. In any case, Holdren just wants all bases covered, no matter what happens. Warmists now HATE the phrase “global warming”, which is why we need to keep using it, to rub their noses in the fact that it just isn’t happening, which proves their precious GCMs are pure unadulterated BS.

  54. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm

    “You mean an anomaly that has been adjusted to show warming at all?”

    Or adjusted to reduce the past, then your current politically driven warming escapade becomes meaningless.

  55. Sparks says:
    April 5, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    lOr adjusted to reduce the past, then your current politically driven warming escapade becomes meaningless.
    Go argue that with the satellite people or with His Lordship

  56. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    “Go argue that with the satellite people or with His Lordship”

    Did you just make a joke Leif.. lmao

  57. Fred Berple’s comment about the cycles of F, E, and D layer ioniztion and lsvalgaard’s return comment about the tail of the dog, reminded me of Eistein’s tale of how radio works. When asked, almost 100 years ag, he said (paraphrasing from memory, ” Radio is like a long cat with its tail in New York and its head in LA. When you pull on the tail in New York, it screams in LA…. except there’s no cat.”

  58. Berényi Péter says:
    April 5, 2014 at 11:21 am
    ………
    Also, there is this huge gravitational fusion plant nearby and we don’t even know how to turn it off. With the proper technology radiative energy from it can be captured cheaply, stored in non toxic, non flammable chemicals like sugar and released on demand. The cycle is already working on a large scale for billions of years using God’s nanotechnology. We ourselves are not quite there yet, but getting close.

    Google Proterro — it’s there already–and scaling up.

  59. lsvalgaard says:

    You are being deceptive with the truth… It’s been fun as always mate!

  60. Guys, as Anthony says, this is a *very* speculative theory.

    The one thing we do know for sure is that some people with a lot of money are discounting IPCC and CSIRO predictions that Australian farmland will drop in value – you don’t spend billions of dollars buying something you think will shortly become worthless.

    The inference between this and secret “preparations” for global cooling is very weak, and very circumstantial – as Anthony says, it could simply be economic expansionism, parking commercial profits in land acquisitions. This theory could just be my overactive imagination. If I had any firm evidence that there were actual secret preparations for global warming, I would have presented it.

    But I hope you find this speculative solution to the conundrum of why Aussie farms are being purchased by foreign companies in such volume to be an intriguing possibility – entertainment value if nothing else :-).

  61. OK, Hi Anthony. At risk of being a ‘one-trick-Pony’ (ya, I am, though, born in Year of Horse ;-)), here’s something for the crew, and you. Caught it via the S0′s (Ben DavidSon’s S0′s) http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/ and http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
    and as a Meteorologist you’ll catch the implications immediately, if you’re not already WAY ahead of me. All EU stuff, of course.
    Dr. Kongpop U-Yen’s vid from the 2014 EU Conference in Albuquerque NM posted about 7 hours ago. Check it out: – (Ben Davidson’s will show ‘in its’ time’)

  62. Since I’m on a roll: – (and with the qualification that I absolutely DO NOT wish to ‘cross-swords’ with Dr Leif S….(I’ll leave that to people with the ‘heads’ for the physics and math involved)…here’s Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s talk at the 2014 EU. Apparently: –

    Kirchhoff’s law of thermal emission (formulated in 1860) is presented and demonstrated to be invalid. This law is crucial to our understanding of radiation within arbitrary cavities. Kirchhoff’s law rests at the heart of condensed matter physics and astrophysics. Its collapse can be directly associated with 1) the loss of universality in Planck’s law (Planck’s constant and Boltzmann’s constant are no longer universal in nature), 2) the collapse of the gaseous Sun as described in Standard Solar Models, and 3) the inability of the Big Bang to act as the source of the microwave background. (cont.)

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

    Which, by extension, pretty well blows open the doors as to what, exactly, Our Sun, IS.
    I’d throw in my two cents but I’ve no wish to stir up the atheists, secularists, and ‘anti-”Demon-Haunted World” fine folk who post here. (Agnostics, welcome though).
    Can’t help but suggest, though – speaking if-only-electrically (?)…given the (jury still out) Grand Solar Minimum (of Maunder Intensity) approaching (perhaps)…..Prayer? I’m trying to ‘walk-the-talk’, for what it’s worth out there (here?).

  63. Nice to see Leif back, also rbg.
    I think I’ll take Leif’s advice:
    “perhaps try to keep a lower profile…”
    ==============
    Not.

  64. Thanks, rgb. I’m looking at upgrades right now and will check out new furnaces early. Great comment, as always.

  65. Come big freeze or sunshine, here’s Booker: on IPCC’s alarmism BS : http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84850

    It would be nice if we didn’t push the climate hoax it in the opposite direction.

    By the way, did you know the Russians signed a Disneyland franchise today?
    So the Russians take the Criimea, and Mickey Mouse takes a chunk of land in Moscow.

  66. Some people maintain we’re cooling while Leif says we’re not.
    I guess the coolers might be impressed by the ultracold winter in USA; but don’t forget we here in Europe had a very balmy winter – no snow at all in Germany. The extremes of the out of wack jetstream. It balances out. For the moment Leif is right when he says we are not cooling. RSS and UAH also show this.

  67. DirkH

    Do you really want me to go to the trouble of showing you photographic evidence of brutal winters and extreme record winter cold? It’s okay if you think this winter was mild in Europe, It wasn’t.

  68. From the Wikipedia article on “The Little Ice Age”:-

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

    Hubert Lamb said that in many years, “snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today.”[24] Many springs and summers were cold and wet, but with great variability between years and groups of years. Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper).[25] According to Elizabeth Ewan and Janay Nugent, “Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country. In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively.”[26] Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.[24]

    The thing to bear in mind was the LIA was not uniformly cold – there were warm years, even warm decades, followed by freezing cold years, all mixed together at random. There were also unusually violent storms which brought widespread flooding. Nasty if you are a farmer trying to decide what, if anything, to try to grow.

  69. Dr. Brown states, “The world benefits from not burning through irreplaceable fossil fuels that would be worth far more as chemical feedstock in 100 years than they are now as fuel.”

    Bingo!

  70. HenryP says:
    April 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    “@LSVALGAARD
    I was talking about what is measured at sea level?
    do we have some measurement of UV measured at sealevel?”
    ————————————————————————–
    Henry,
    you are asking entirely the right questions.

    UV in its various frequencies does vary far more between solar cycles than the 0.1% of the stamped flat TSI record. UV-E by as much as 30% and UV-A by as much as 1%.

    Sea level UV is the right question, or rather below sea level. Our oceans are heated primarily by shorter frequencies penetrating to depth. UV-A still has a power of 10 w/m2 at a depth of 50m.

    Solar variation between solar cycles could be driving 1 w/m2 or more of ocean heating. It is important to remember that this can accumulate over time as our oceans store heat like a giant solar pond. Climastrologists ignore the frequency variation between solar cycles and use only the 0.1% TSI figure because their failed calculations treat the oceans as a “blackbody” absorbing radiation only at a non-existant matt black superconducting surface.

    Our oceans are actually a “selective coating” covering 71% of the planet. UV variation matters.

  71. @rgbatduke
    wonderful post – I’m bookmarking this thread in my Electric Sun Links folio, to find it again. I may have something to add of interest soon, Bz”H, that might ‘change the equation’, practically – down here ‘on this Plane’. (4-6 months). TY
    Like you say….”Just Wait”….

  72. rgbatduke says:
    April 5, 2014 at 10:31 am

    The thing is, the climate is a highly nonlinear system with self-organized internal metastructure driven by the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy. …

    I think the problem is in the concept of “the climate” itself. Talking about the climate and the globe on any temporal scale of less than millennia is too short, and possibly even that is too short. The ice ages are the minimum cyclic climate changes that can be discerned without torturing data into unrecognizability. Even they may very well be cyclic patterns in a Lorentzian chaotic system.

  73. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:55 am

    Only an alarmist speculation? Really? Because of the person speculating? I’m asking on what basis the prediction was made and in particular whether the bicentennial component needs to be tightly tied to the 11-year cycle as shown. If there is a bicentennial component, then doesn’t that have its own basis in the solar record? Why should we believe anyone is so familiar with it they can honestly claim it must be so precisely tied to the 11 year cycle as shown? Obviously, we don’t have enough centuries of data to be able to say such a thing. Your so-called answer is merely dismissive and an insult to this audience. I would expect more from someone with your stature. Of course, I have also seen you take severe abuse here, and I applaud your ability to withstand it, and your willingness to continue to share your knowledge in this forum.

  74. Hoser

    Check the following link on Wikipedia, solar miminum:-

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

    Homeric minimum [9] 950BC 800BC
    Oort minimum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1040 1080
    Medieval maximum (see Medieval Warm Period) 1100 1250
    Wolf minimum 1280 1350
    Spörer Minimum 1450 1550
    Maunder Minimum 1645 1715
    Dalton Minimum 1790 1820
    Modern Maximum 1900 present

    Notice the Wolf, Spörer, Maunder and Dalton minima are spaced (very) roughly 200 years apart.

    The Maunder and Dalton minima at least were associated with unusual cold.

    The sun currently appears to be entering a new quiet period. The Russian Academy of Science is not the only group to speculate about the possibility of a new solar grand minimum, for example, this report from the BBC:- http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25743806

    Opinions vary on what impact the new minimum, if it manifests as expected, will have on global climate.

  75. Hoser says:
    April 5, 2014 at 8:37 pm
    If there is a bicentennial component, then doesn’t that have its own basis in the solar record?
    The amplitude, duration, and cause of any ‘bicentennial component’ are controversial or at least poorly known. Abdusamatov simply fitted the component to a TSI, which was wrongly calibrated to begin with, and then extrapolated based on only a few years and without statistical analysis [other than curve fitting by eye]. This is a very dubious practice and it has already been proven wrong by the actual development of both TSI and the temperature record. To still hawk this anyway can only be seen as alarmist speculation by the poster of the article under discussion.
    Now, it is very likely that a new Grand Minimum is coming, but it is highly unlikely that the temperature will drop as much as postulated.
    My point was that Abdusamatov’s prediction has already been falsified. Of course, if you are a true believer you can also say that ‘eventually’ temps might drop, but without proper analysis that would also just be speculation.

  76. ‘Modern Maximum’ and ‘Not a Modern Maximum’
    These alternative statements seem to cycle thru WUWT about every 11 days, plus or minus a week and a half.

  77. John F. Hultquist says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:55 pm
    ‘Modern Maximum’ and ‘Not a Modern Maximum’
    These alternative statements seem to cycle thru WUWT about every 11 days, plus or minus a week and a half.

    Regardless, the SSN-Workshop’s preliminary assessment of the variation of the number of sunspot groups looks like this: http://www.leif.org/research/Composite-Group-Series.png
    There was a maximum in each of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, but none that qualifies as a Grand Maximum.

  78. Eric Worrall says:
    April 5, 2014 at 10:39 pm
    According to Solanki 2004, the 20th century saw the highest level of solar activity in 8000 years. I would call that a substantial “grand maximum”.
    Except that Solanki [and others] are wrong about this. I have provided links to how we know this. Read them.

  79. Konrad says
    Sea level UV is the right question, or rather below sea level. Our oceans are heated primarily by shorter frequencies penetrating to depth. UV-A still has a power of 10 w/m2 at a depth of 50m.

    Henry says
    Konrad,thanks for that comment. There are not too many of us who actually figured it all out.
    Clearly, Leif does not get any UV on his skin, perhaps he is dark skinned? Perhaps he should come here in the SH? Anyway, I learned it is rather pointless talking to him.

    From my own analysis of maximum temperatures – which I see as an excellent proxy to assess the amount of incoming energy- I was able to figure out the chain events that will lead to more global cooling in the future, on average, when compared to before the new millennium.

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

    (first table bottom, 4 results for the 4 periods)
    There were some here on WUWT who suggested to cut up the 4 periods in different periods, e.g. into the exact lengths of Schwabe solar cycles, if somebody can give me here those exact 4 periods for the past 40 years?

  80. What is happening with the magnetic field of the Sun, no one remembers. This will be the main cause of climate change.

  81. China is buying Australian property because they have no decent banking system for the rich to use for savings. They choose Australia because we are a stable country, both politically and economically and the rule of law applies. It is not just farm land that they are buying but houses and units in urban areas. When China wants to stop this flow of wealth out of the country they will change the rules and part of the property bubble in Australia will burst.

  82. Konrad says
    Sea level UV is the right question, or rather below sea level. Our oceans are heated primarily by shorter frequencies penetrating to depth. UV-A still has a power of 10 w/m2 at a depth of 50m.

    Henry says
    Konrad,thanks for that comment. There are not too many of us who actually figured it all out.
    Clearly, Leif does not get any UV on his skin, perhaps he is dark skinned? Perhaps he should come here in the SH? Anyway, I learned it is rather pointless talking to him.

    From my own analysis of maximum temperatures – which I see as an excellent proxy to assess the amount of incoming energy- I was able to figure out the chain events that will lead to more global cooling in the future, on average, when compared to before the new millennium.

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

    (first table bottom, 4 results for the 4 periods)
    There were some here on WUWT who suggested to cut up the 4 periods in different periods, e.g. into the exact lengths of Schwabe solar cycles, if somebody can give me here those exact 4 periods for the past 40 years?

  83. On a similar subject – what will this year’s cold N American weather do to this years’ N American agricultural output.

    Can Canada recover, plant late, and still produce the same crop yields? Or will there be a shortfall this year? Any farmers out there with an answer?

    R

  84. lsvalgaard
    Except that Solanki [and others] are wrong about this. I have provided links to how we know this. Read them.

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. You may be right that there is nothing special about 20th century solar activity – but sunspot count is a pretty good proxy for solar activity, and there is no doubt sunspot count was down in the Dalton minimum at least; 1790 – 1820. So for the first part of the 19th century at least, solar activity was well down on current levels.

    (Graph of sunspot count vs TSI)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/normalise/from:1970/plot/pmod/normalise/from:1970

    Below is an integral of sunspot count vs global temperature I created a while ago. Regardless of what you think of my effort to demonstrate a correspondence between temperature and solar activity in this graph, one of the things this graph shows is that sunspot count during the 20th century was significantly higher than in the 19th century.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise

  85. lsvalgaard
    Just had another look at your composite graph – that shows pretty much what I just stated. The only issue is whether the 20th century was special compared to previous centuries. I’m happy to defer to your expertise on that one.

  86. Henry@Eric
    Eric, do I understand correctly that you wrote this article? I am just asking to make sure.

    A natural consequence of global cooling, if it continues,
    (and I explained here why I think it will continue,
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/an-intriguing-mystery-and-a-very-speculative-theory/#comment-1606834 )

    is a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average.

    Whilst maximum and average temperatures will still be dropping (until 2038), average temperature around the equator remains more or less unchanged, largely due to more condensation energy coming free.
    At the higher latitudes >[40] it will become progressively drier, from now onward, possibly even warmer during the day, ultimately culminating in a big drought period similar to the dust bowl drought 1932-1939. My various calculations all bring me to believe that this main drought period on the Great Plains will be from 2021-2028. It looks like we have only 7 “fat” years left…..

    Obviously exchanging >[latitude] land for <[latitude] land seems like a good deal to me,
    in fact, I believe the survival of 7 billion people may depend on it.

  87. @ren
    there was a scissor graph of the sun’s magnetic field strengths (both poles)
    I cannot find it here anymore?

    I wonder if Leif took it away from us?

  88. I’d be a bit wary of attributing Chinese investment in land to any motives other than that land is the only investment worth a damn when push comes to shove.

  89. I’m getting a warning on w/Windows 7 on Firefox 28.0 that WUWT can’t be “authenticated” — an invalid certificate and possibly the site being “impersonated”. First time this has happened. Checked for viruses & spyware — nothing detected. Cleared internet cache & all history but got it again. Prb’ly on my side if no one else is seeing it, but concerning.

  90. If the Chinese are buying farms in Australia, the reason is to make money. But I do like conspiracy theories. Although I’m a little suspicious of the Russian Academy of Sciences right now.

  91. I am sure the people of Galveston disagree. Galvaston was destroyed in the year 1900 when CO2 levels were low. The town never managed to regain it’s positions as a leading US boom town.

    Holdren, just like Obama is an activist. You can’t have a sane dialogue with activists.
    They execute “Agenda’s”.

    We can’t afford a Nation like the US to be ruled by a bunch of idiots with an Agenda.

    I can’t say it more direct.

    Just kick those idiots out of office before they inflict more damage to the US, the World and our populations.

  92. HenryP
    Henry@Eric
    Eric, do I understand correctly that you wrote this article? I am just asking to make sure.

    Yes.

    Obviously exchanging >[latitude] land for <[latitude] land seems like a good deal to me,
    in fact, I believe the survival of 7 billion people may depend on it.

    The land will be worked regardless of who owns it – especially if there are shortages elsewhere. But the owner of the land controls to whom they sell the produce.

    There is also some unpleasantness on the home front – farmers are being told repeatedly that conditions will get worse. Bankers and insurers are potentially being influenced by predictions of worsening conditions. There has even been a suggestion that farmers on more marginal land should be discouraged from continuing, because predicted climate change will destroy the workability of the land.

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/time-to-sell-the-farm-20140218-32wyj.html

    If Aussie farmers are being encouraged to sell at rock bottom prices, due to “official” assurances that there is no hope for the future, and people with different information are buying, then someone IMO is gaining an unfair advantage.

  93. While others invade to get rich china buys strategic assets and political submission follows e.g this winter cameron sold uk foreign policy and was publicly humiliated in the process in the Chinese press that called the uk economy nothing but a theme park that was ok for tourists. Uk F.O now says nothing on tibet, taiwan, japanese islands

  94. Eric Worrall says:
    April 6, 2014 at 3:20 am
    Below is an integral of sunspot count vs global temperature I created a while ago.
    Ah, yes, this sort of thing seems to be popular. Here is my version:

  95. Awww some of you have gotten so gosh darned stuffy. It’s a fascinating weekend post and its occasionally fun to swoon over doom. Just consider it a palette cleanser before we dig into another week of liberal warmer moonbat madness

  96. lsvalgaard says:
    April 5, 2014 at 9:18 am

    http://www.leif.org/research/Abdussa3.png
    TSI has not declined as predicted as the thin blue curve shows (after allowance for the 4.8 W/m2 offset the older dataset had).

    The graph shows TSI going from 1366 to 1360 W/m2. That’s about 1/2% and should result in a decrease in the planet’s temperature of about 1/10% or about 0.3° C. So, why does anyone care about TSI?

  97. commieBob says:
    April 6, 2014 at 8:25 am
    The graph shows TSI going from 1366 to 1360 W/m2. That’s about 1/2% and should result in a decrease in the planet’s temperature of about 1/10% or about 0.3° C. So, why does anyone care about TSI?
    Because TSI is where the energy is. Now, people come up with all kinds of ‘excuses’, like there is a seven-fold amplification ‘feedback’, like there is a small portion of TSI that has an enormous effect, like it is the magnetic field, cosmic rays, aliens, etc, anything to avoid admitting that solar activity has not been observed to have a significant effect on the climate. I wish it had; that would increase the relevance of my research and funding in a big way…

  98. ren says

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

    Henry says
    Thanks. That was the one I was looking for.
    Knowing the distribution of the pattern of warming that is coming, I predict that the field strengths of both poles (of the sun) will hover a bit around zero or close to zero for the next two years, and then it will all move back, so that the next 22 years (from 2016-2038 ) will mirror the scissors from the past 22 years, i.e. from 1994-2016. After that, increasing field strengths will occur again, as per the same mirror, going further back in time.
    So, it seems to me that global cooling can be associated with generally lower field strengths, compared to the global warming period (until 1995).
    Of course, that is just my opinion.
    I wonder if it is the (lower) field strengths that is affecting the reactions TOA, that makes the ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides lying at the TOA?

  99. @Eric
    Thanks. I did get what you were saying.
    Unfortunately I have to take it even further
    It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

    I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.

    Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……

    WHAT MUST WE DO?

    We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
    We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
    We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.

  100. HenryP

    Look at the graph for the year 1800, and for 2008 and see for yourself. 208 cycles are very visible in ice cores. Are superimposed with the cycles of 88 years.
    In addition, the Sun’s magnetic field is weaker than in the cycles of the early twentieth century.

    http://epic.awi.de/13582/1/Bra2005e.pdf

  101. Considering so many commenters here got mad at Lewandowsky, why are you providing him with this much new material? Are you trying to kill him with overwork?

  102. lsvalgaard says:
    April 6, 2014 at 8:53 am
    “… like there is a small portion of TSI that has an enormous effect, like it is the magnetic field, cosmic rays, aliens, etc, anything to avoid admitting that solar activity has not been observed to have a significant effect on the climate. I wish it had; that would increase the relevance of my research and funding in a big way…”
    ————————————————–
    Dr. Svalgaard,
    I would consider Henry’s questions about UV to be quite valid. You will no doubt recall that Jack Eddy said “many plugs”

    With regard to UV, the issue is the oceans. Climastrologists have calculated that our oceans would have a Tmean of around -18C in the absence of atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR. This is a serious error, caused by considering the oceans to be a “blackbody” heated at the surface, when in fact our oceans act as a “selective coating” 5km deep over 71% of the planets surface. Our oceans heat slowly from below the surface. The climastrologists figure of -18C is in error by around 98C. (It’s not as bad as it looks, they got the calcs for Lunar regolith out by 90C. What’s another 8C matter when you are that far out?)

    Without atmospheric cooling and DWLWIR, our oceans would turn into a giant evaporation constrained solar pond. It should be noted that surface solar flux has the ability to heat translucent materials to 120C or beyond.

    With regard to the oceans is is disingenuous to talk of only TSI variance as the higher frequencies vary most between solar cycles and it is these frequencies that are most relevant in deep energy accumulation in the oceans. UV-A, which may vary as much as 1% between solar cycles, still has a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.

    I would consider this a plausible mechanism for solar influence on climate, although with some lag. No aliens, or indeed no implication of commenters being crazy enough to suggest aliens are required or warranted.

  103. Magma
    Considering so many commenters here got mad at Lewandowsky, why are you providing him with this much new material? Are you trying to kill him with overwork?

    If we allow what we discuss to be defined by the likes of Lewandowsky, we have already lost.

  104. Konrad says:
    April 6, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    With regard to the oceans is is disingenuous to talk of only TSI variance as the higher frequencies vary most between solar cycles and it is these frequencies that are most relevant in deep energy accumulation in the oceans. UV-A, which may vary as much as 1% between solar cycles, still has a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
    One percent of 10 W/m2 is only 0.1 W/m2 and does not do much in the heat budget. One of the problems here is that people has little sense of proportions. Some of the comments here are just as crazy as ascribing climate disruption to aliens.

  105. lsvalgaard says:
    April 6, 2014 at 7:33 pm
    “One percent of 10 W/m2 is only 0.1 W/m2 and does not do much in the heat budget. One of the problems here is that people has little sense of proportions.”
    ———————————————-
    In terms of proportion, I was attempting to illustrate that by indicating the true mechanism by which our oceans heat, slowly and from well below the surface. Climastrologists are looking for radiative forcing in instantaneous radiative flux equations and not at accumulation on longer time-scales.

    Further, 10 w/m2 is the strength of UV-A at 50m. It is almost 50 w/m2 near the surface. And that is just one frequency.

    I am not claiming UV variance alone is a primary driver of climate fluctuations. It is plausible however that it is one of jack Eddy’s “many plugs”.

    I would also note that care should be taken with any discussion of “heat budget”. If it involves the “blackbody” calculations of climastrologists then you can be very sure it’s wrong.

  106. lsvalgaard
    Do your research take into account the period of 100 years? Since 100 years we had no such a weak solar cycle. Can you deny that? Solar magnetic field was extremely active in the twentieth century, and suddenly stopped. Can you tell how it will affect the climate?

    • @ren
      No use talking to dr S. He thinks we are men from mars. Note the decrease in ozone from 1951 and subsequent increase from 1995.

  107. Never worry about foreigners buying land. Land does move. If foreigners own it, they have to pay the land tax or the government will take it from them. If foreigners own a lot of land, locals will raise land taxes.

    In the 1980s, Japanese interests bought a lot of trophy properties in the US like Rockefeller center and Pebble Beach Golf course. After the Japanese bubble burst in 1989, they were forced to sell all they had bought at knockdown prices.

    Never worry about foreigners buying land.

  108. ren says:
    April 6, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    Do your research take into account the period of 100 years? Since 100 years we had no such a weak solar cycle. Can you deny that?
    In fact, I predicted that http://http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

    Solar magnetic field was extremely active in the twentieth century, and suddenly stopped.
    The geomagnetic aa -index is wrongly calibrated and there is no real difference between solar magnetism in any of the three centuries 18th-20th: http://www.leif.org/research/HMF-1835-2014-and-the-Sun.pdf

    Can you tell how it will affect the climate?
    It will not.

  109. As we understand it down under, the unfurling Australian ‘dining boom’ is both a reaction to rising demand for quality agricultural produce in prospering Asia, and a grab for real assets in the face of uncertain financial markets. More people, more demand for land … sorry no cooling required.

  110. Konrad says:
    April 6, 2014 at 8:54 pm
    Further, 10 w/m2 is the strength of UV-A at 50m. It is almost 50 w/m2 near the surface. And that is just one frequency.
    No, not ‘one frequency, but a whole frequency band where almost all the energy of UV is. And 1% of 50 W/m2 is only 0.5 W/m2 which is nothing compared to the rest. The solar cycle variation of TSI is of three times as large [and a part of that is the UV].

    I am not claiming UV variance alone is a primary driver of climate fluctuations. It is plausible however that it is one of jack Eddy’s “many plugs”.
    At the end of his life Eddy didn’t really believe that the Sun was important. As he said at the Dinner-talk at the 2003 SORCE meeting: “the energy simply isn’t there”. He meant, of course, the cycle-related change in in-coming energy.

    I would also note that care should be taken with any discussion of “heat budget”.
    Heat budget is simple: something comes in, something goes out. In the long run the two must balance.

  111. lsvalgaard

    The problem is how much energy actually reaches the Earth’s surface and how it is distributed.

  112. lsvalgaard says:
    April 6, 2014 at 10:21 pm
    ——————————-
    “And 1% of 50 W/m2 is only 0.5 W/m2 which is nothing compared to the rest.”

    My point is that is that it is the shorter wavelengths that penetrate and heat the oceans. UV can penetrate the oceans and accumulate. Using instantaneous radiative flux equations won’t work for the oceans. They are not a blackbody, they are a selective coating, they store energy. Less than 1 w/m2? No matter, all we are looking for is less than 1 degree in 100 years.

    “Heat budget is simple: something comes in, something goes out. In the long run the two must balance.”

    Not so simple. Firstly our planet is never in radiative balance. Secondly, satellites read a TOA radiation balance error around 5 times the “CO2 radiative forcing” climastrologists are hoping to find. Thirdly, their blackbody calcs for the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling are in error by 98C. What hope is there of calculating a “heat budget” when climastrologists have gotten the physics of ocean heating so incredibly wrong?

  113. Let’s see how the decreased magnetic activity of the Sun.

    You can see that fell from 22 cycle, the trend is evident.

  114. Konrad says
    UV-A, which may vary as much as 1% between solar cycles, still has a power of 10 w/m2 at 50m depth.
    Lief says
    (btw is it Lief (a belgian name) or is it Leif (a danish name)_
    One percent of 10 W/m2 is only 0.1 W/m2 and does not do much in the heat budget. One of the problems here is that people has little sense of proportions. Some of the comments here are just as crazy as ascribing climate disruption to aliens.
    Henry says
    what you have to realize is the formation TOA of ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides which deflect more radiation to space (especially short wave lengths) when there is more of it. Even Trenberth admits this for the ozone, and gave it a substantial figure, but he forgot about the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides.
    So what we must measure is UV at sea level, and see how that changes…….because as Konrad says, that is the major ingredient that heats the oceans and therefore provides warmth to earth. TSI (at TOA) is not the proxy that is important.

  115. Henry- I don’t think anyone is disputing one is worse than the other, IF it happens. Indeed if we are entering a LIA, it’s an incredible time to be alive. Moreover, for those of us who like a “Unified Theory” of conspiracies, one dilly of a theory us as follows: The Global Warmer Scientists are secretly Global Coolers, who realized in the 70s that as with other Ice Age cycles, we would enter a short warming period. This was played as “global warming” to better spread their agenda and eventually their control over all natural resources in the Southern Hemisphere. (After all, nobody rich wants a total toxic waste dump, so end their advancement to “First World” status.). Then when the inevitable Ice Age returns, there will be conflict to carve up which countries get what continents and the Great Unwashed, get pushed out or killed. The End. (Also, this article misses who owns what in South America. Monsanto has been trying to buy up land in Uruguay for years, and generally failing. Large tracts of land in Paraguay are owned by the Bush family. Both Paraguay and Uruguay have some of the most temperate weather on the plante and huge aquifers. Looking at where Monsanto is buying would complete my Doom Swoon. Can’t have a decent conspiracy without a Bush, lol. Anyway, my conspiracy fun wraps it all up neatly, doesn’t it? You’re Welcome. ;)

  116. henry@sherry
    it seems there are some internet problems
    …..my first answer is seemingly lost in space…
    Anyway, the point is that I would not buy any land >[40] latitudes
    as obviously there are going to be droughts there. It is just a physical reaction: as the temp. differential between the poles an equator increases so will condensation increase at the lower latitudes, leaving less vapor to move to the higher latitudes/
    that is assuming that the amount of water vapor in a cooling world is the same, which probably is also not true…
    I am not worried that we will fall into an ice age or LIA, because I think men’s ingenuity will save us.
    The ice age trap is more about the “snow” trap which deflects energy to space. We could easily use carbon dust (!!!!) to stop that from happening or blast some energy to melt the snow.
    What worries me is the coming droughts and the under-utilization of the land around the equator.
    In 1933 there was hyper inflation in Germany, mostly due to food shortages, and this brought Hitler to power. What will happen in 2022 (=1933) with so many more people on earth needing food?

  117. Leif,

    We can predict an aspect of the earths climate based on solar activity, Solar influence on earth is one of the primary sources being debated. We can observe this when we experience solar minimum, our planet is exposed to less activity including low levels of X-ray and UV, this of course coincides with cooler periods, we can also compare this with observations during solar maximum, coinciding with warm periods, offset slightly, it’s a statisticians dream. It becomes a non event when it becomes politicised. That’s when the underlining science is swept aside.

    Don’t get me started on earths orbital timing and orientation within our solar system.

  118. Sparks says:
    April 7, 2014 at 7:49 pm
    this of course coincides with cooler periods
    Yeah, “the science is settled” is what you claim.

    Don’t get me started on earths orbital timing and orientation within our solar system.
    Well, that is the only real thing and does control climate as Milankovich showed.

  119. Leif,

    You can debate science to your hearts content, right or less right the science is settled! apparently :)

  120. Sparks says:
    April 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm
    You can debate science to your hearts content, right or less right the science is settled! apparently :)
    I tend to distrust people who claim the science is settled…

    Sparks says:
    April 7, 2014 at 9:07 pm
    Have you found anything positive to argue about lately?
    Say something that makes sense and I can try.

  121. lsvalgaard says:
    April 7, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    “I tend to distrust people who claim the science is settled…
    Interesting! it doesn’t prevent you from claiming that other good people are.

    “Say something that makes sense and I can try.”
    Is solar cycle activity binary? where maximum activity has a positive effect.

  122. Sherry Moore says:
    April 7, 2014 at 7:30 am

    Sorry, but I can’t tell if you’re making fun of whacky conspiracy theories or promulgating them.

    Surely you must know that the Bushs’ buying land on gas or water rich land in Paraguay is a hoax perpetrated by Cuba’s La Prensa, & that more than half of Paraguay lies in tropical, not temperate, latitudes.

  123. Sparks says:
    April 7, 2014 at 9:29 pm
    “I tend to distrust people who claim the science is settled…”
    Interesting! it doesn’t prevent you from claiming that other good people are.”
    What other good people? and what are they?

    “Say something that makes sense and I can try.”
    Is solar cycle activity binary? where maximum activity has a positive effect.

    Still doesn’t ,make enough sense to comment on…

  124. Leif,

    The question remains.
    “Is solar cycle activity binary? where maximum activity has a positive effect.”

  125. Sparks says:
    April 7, 2014 at 11:28 pm
    Answer the question!
    A meaningless question deserves a meaningless answer: “ferqwfdfh ssdfsdf gfdgdfgdll”

  126. lsvalgaard says:
    April 7, 2014 at 11:50 pm

    A meaningless question deserves a meaningless answer: “ferqwfdfh ssdfsdf gfdgdfgdll”

    It’s a question that you replied with some insult, and I quote “ferqwfdfh ssdfsdf gfdgdfgdll”

    Just answer the question..

  127. Sparks says:
    April 8, 2014 at 12:16 am
    Just answer the question..
    It does not matter how many times you repeat that question. It is still meaningless. A standard answer to meaningless, silly questions might be NO. But in all fairness, if you want a good answer, ask a good question. Perhaps you think your question is good, but let me be the judge of my understanding of it [or rather lack thereof]. If you can’t formulate an understandable question, perhaps you should just slink away.

  128. lsvalgaard says:
    April 8, 2014 at 12:42 am

    Answer an honest question and spare us all the nonsense!

  129. Sparks says:
    April 8, 2014 at 12:49 am
    Answer an honest question and spare us all the nonsense!
    As I said, the question is meaningless. And a simple answer to nonsense is NO.

  130. lsvalgaard:
    pearls before swine, and whatnot.
    why bother?….
    I mean really, like solar activity could EVER be characterized as a binary function?
    why let yourself get drawn in to it?
    you have to wonder “does this guy even know what binary means?”
    geez.
    its just such a waste of your time, and knowledge.

  131. davideisenstadt says:
    April 8, 2014 at 7:02 am
    “like solar activity could EVER be characterized as a binary function?”

    In context Leif wont admit that activity during solar maximum has a positive influence on earths climate, and therefore no activity during solar minimum would have a negative influence.

    Do understand my binary reference now? :)

  132. Sparks says:
    April 8, 2014 at 10:48 am
    In context Leif wont admit that activity during solar maximum has a positive influence on earths climate, and therefore no activity during solar minimum would have a negative influence.
    You are still being meaningless. The Sun always has a positive influence on Earth’s climate, large during solar maximum and small during solar minimum, but always positive. Now some people are silly enough to believe that low solar activity means cooling. It is at least good to see that you are not among those.

  133. HenryP says:
    April 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm

    I wouldn’t call Leif useless, his forecast for solar cycle 24 has been one of the most accurate, I believe he is acting with some professional misdirection :)

Comments are closed.